Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NYPD Police BrutalityFollow

#102 Oct 03 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
All the testimonies I had seen said they didn't, but I suppose they were just from people who were still too far back to hear.


Somehow, I doubt that the testimonies you're hearing are very objective.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Oct 03 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
All the testimonies I had seen said they didn't, but I suppose they were just from people who were still too far back to hear.


Somehow, I doubt that the testimonies you're hearing are very objective.


I suspect that is the case for every testimony.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#104 Oct 03 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
All the testimonies I had seen said they didn't, but I suppose they were just from people who were still too far back to hear.


Somehow, I doubt that the testimonies you're hearing are very objective.


I suspect that is the case for every testimony.


LIES!

All my testimony is fair and balanced. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#105 Oct 03 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
someproteinguy wrote:

All my testimony is fair and balanced. Smiley: nod

You fox, you!
#106 Oct 04 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Back on topic, apparently FOX News put up a list of demands from the protesters. Turns out it was a phony list taken from a random forum topic on their site. The blame actually rests on the Washington Times who originally posted it; however, they have retracted the story and put up the official demands instead (while FOX News, as of this posting, has not). At least I can no longer claim ignorance about what the protesters want...

1. THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.

2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

Looking at them quickly, most I agree with. Not sure about number 3; wouldn't legislation to get around a SCotUS decision be deemed unconstitutional? Number 4, eh, not positive what to think. Number 8 is the sticker; that completely changes how businesses are treated in the US, especially for insurance purposes. Not sure if that's a good one or not.


Edited, Oct 4th 2011 1:02pm by LockeColeMA
#107 Oct 04 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

1. THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.

2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.


I'm glad to know what they want as well. Most of what I've seen describes them as a mixed group with a variety of different demands. As for an IMO:

1) I don't understand this enough to form an opinion.
2) If someone broke the law there should be consequences, I suppose there's no argument there.
3) I'm not happy with the way we do elections here either, but I'm not sure this is how to fix it.
4) Closing loopholes is 'good' the specifics are much harder. Also it's funny to hear a liberal group want to bring back the 50s... Smiley: lol
5) The SEC certainly isn't popular these days eh? I'm pretty lukewarm on how you can better monitor large amounts of money without corruption, but am open to hearing ideas.
6) Less lobbyists certainly sounds good, but I fear the rats will just find another path onto the boat.
7) I'm not sure where else these people would work, it's not necessarily easy to change jobs; but yeah conflict of interest is bad.
8) I don't understand this enough to form an opinion.

I suppose like a lot of grass roots stuff there's a lot of nice idealism, and a shortage of specifics. I guess those things get worked out over time though.

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 10:56am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#108 Oct 04 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
someproteinguy wrote:

8) I don't understand this enough to form an opinion.

From my undergraduate studies in business law, we learned that back in... 1890ish?... the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment applied to corporations. Activist judges Smiley: mad But anyway, this was necessary for much of our big industry, because up until that point the company WAS the person as far the government was concerned. If the person died, so did the company. If someone wanted to leave the company to their family, the wealth had to be transferred and taxed. If the company was sued, the owner could lose all of their personal income and wealth as well.

By applying the 14th amendment to companies and turning them into corporations, the corporation became its own legal entity. If someone was hurt on their premises or by their product, the company could go bankrupt but the owner's fortunes were untouched. If the owner died, ownership could be passed to the family without the company ending or everything being taxed. Business owners loved this because it made it a lot less risky to start and run a company; the government loved it because they could now tax "twice" (as the owner is now paid as an employee, the income of the company itself was taxed, as was the income of the owner). The only really sticky part was legal issues where there were risky decisions made "by the company" but even if the company fell the owners couldn't be sued. Which leads to situations like what we have today, where bad or risky decisions pay off and the ones making those decisions get golden parachutes instead of being reduced to penniless shells of their former glory.

I personally fall on the pro-business side of that argument and support "personhood."

Quote:
I suppose like a lot of grass roots stuff there's a lot of nice idealism, and a shortage of specifics. I guess those things get worked out over time though.

Agree, it's mostly idealism right now. I consider it about as idealist and vague as the Contract From America that the Tea Party endorses.
#109 Oct 04 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Ahhhh i see... complicated.

Smiley: thumbsup

I'd rate you up, but you know... Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#110 Oct 04 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Those demands sound a lot like they were made up of High School students who's only understanding of politics comes from watching MSNBC and the Daily Show. Of course, given how they were generated, it's likely that's *exactly* the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Oct 04 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Those demands sound a lot like they were made up of High School students who's only understanding of politics comes from watching MSNBC and the Daily Show. Of course, given how they were generated, it's likely that's *exactly* the case.


Hey, they remind me a lot of something else...
Quote:
Contract From America

Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes


It's like large groups of angry people rely on short, idealistic (and vague) messages to express the broad variety of their grievances!

Now that the customary mocking of the Tea Party is done, mind doing a point-by-point of your disagreement with each of those eight? I'm actually curious why you don't like them. I'm assuming you don't, but it's quite possible you just wanted to mock the protesters as I did the Tea Party. Fair enough.
#112 Oct 04 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
The common sentiment that I've been reading is that the protesters have several demands, many of which you listed, but when asked what they would do to change/replace the current systems, their typical response is along the lines of "Oh, lots of things", yet they don't offer a single alternative or solution. This is part of the reason they aren't gaining any significant support, other that people who really have nothing better to do.

And with the threat from Anonymous today (Anonymous denies it, but the damage is done) to shut down the stock exchange Monday, they're about to get a ******** of attention they really don't want. There's also rumor that a DDoS script has been handed out for people to install on their systems. I assume it's a botnet script, but either way it's about the dumbest thing that could have been done.
#113 Oct 04 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
It's like large groups of angry people rely on short, idealistic (and vague) messages to express the broad variety of their grievances!


Broadly defined bullet points are one thing. The issue is what's behind those points and whether they are realistic, effective, and legal/constitutional. Even from a subjective point of view you can at least respect someone doing that. The points in this case are so naive and foolish as to be laughable.

Quote:
Now that the customary mocking of the Tea Party is done, mind doing a point-by-point of your disagreement with each of those eight? I'm actually curious why you don't like them. I'm assuming you don't, but it's quite possible you just wanted to mock the protesters as I did the Tea Party. Fair enough.


Sure:


1. THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.

This one's at least potentially doable and subjectively reasonable. The problem is that while many economists do agree that the financial reform of 1999 was largely responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent collapse, it wasn't the repealing of Glass-Steagall that was the culprit. What they're proposing is like someone passing a bill that prevents child molesters from teaching at school *and* requires dumping poison into the water supply, then when people get sick from the poisoned water, insisting on removing the restriction for child molesters to teach at school.

Regardless of what other factors were present in that reform act in 1999 which may need to be changed (and that's an argument all by itself), the part that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act was necessary to allow US banking systems to compete with foreign banks. Reinstating that law would cause massive economic problems. If you want, I'll explain them to you.


2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

This one's just ridiculous. If laws were "clearly broken", then there's already recourse to fill charges, sue, etc. This one's based on some people claiming that the actions of others are illegal and other ignorant people following that up with a call to investigate and charge those evil bankers with crimes. I know that it's become increasingly popular for liberal pundits and their screaming supporters to label anything they dislike as "illegal" (The "illegal war in Iraq anyone?), that doesn't actually make those things violations of the law.

3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

Yeah. That constitution thing doesn't really matter at all. I also love that the point just talks about how bad the ruling was, but not what exactly to do about it. And what would you have to do about it? You'd have to amend the 1st amendment of the constitution to specifically restrict free speech as it pertains to political support. The ramifications of that are dire and long reaching.

Someone just didn't even begin the process of thinking this one through. Actually, a whole lot of people failed at this. Oh. And while they don't use the phrase "Fairness Doctrine", that's also what this one calls for. Also problematic from a 1st amendment perspective.

4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

This one is self-moronifying (is that a word)? What is the "Buffet Rule" anyway? They're calling for some vague thing that makes rich people "pay their fair share". Let's ignore the fact that if you actually made rich people pay the same percentage of their earnings in taxes as their secretaries, most of them would pay less taxes and not more (Buffet is an extreme exception). There's also the issue that Buffet's taxes are capital gains which he then compared to his secretary's personal income taxes, yet they complain about GE not paying any corporate income taxes.

And that's before getting into the fact that the reason GE didn't pay any income taxes in 2010 was because they received massive amounts of tax credits from the Obama administration for all of their "green energy" products (in the very Stimulus Bill which the GOP opposed I might add). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the same idiots cheering for raising taxes on "the rich" also cheer when Obama tells him he's going to pass a bill to create more "green jobs". F'ing idiots.

5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

While I don't disagree that the SEC has some conflict of interest issues, this one's just plain naive. They're calling for increasing funding to hire a large staff of "proven professionals", while criticizing that the current staff are "Wall St. insiders". Um... What criteria do they propose we use to find all these "proven professionals" to work at the SEC? Unless they're arguing for proven professionalism in areas other than the stock market (which is entirely possible I suppose), then how do you get people who haven't worked in Wall Street?

It's like no one even bothered to engage their brains on this. Had this point actually talked about maybe some regulations or practices designed to minimize the potential for corrupt decision making, they'd at least be on the right track. But this just comes off as spend more money on more of the same and hope that things will get better. It's an abrogation of responsibility to take this approach in my opinion and smacks of "I know something is wrong, I don't know what exactly, but someone told me that if we give them a bunch more money it'll be better". That's just a stupid way of doing things.

6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

How do you "limit the influence of lobbyists"? Who decides which lobbyists have too much influence? How much influence is too much? Hell. What makes someone a lobbyist? There's just this really apparent lack of clue as to how the 1st amendment applies to political speech present in several of these points. I suspect that there's no detail on this one precisely because it sounds good as a bullet point if you don't think about it too much, but it's impossible to actually write how you'd approach this without getting yourself into massive amounts of incredibly selective trouble, and potentially the creation of government agencies which would effectively control political speech in ways no sane person should desire.

7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

Trying to eliminate conflicts of interest is a reasonable idea. Passing a law restricting future employment may not be the best way to do it. Oddly, this one is by far the most reasonable of all of the proposals, but it's still problematic and doesn't really eliminate the problem. I'd much prefer that we had greater oversight on conflicts as a whole (which they also propose and is also quite reasonable).

It would be nice if they'd get off the assumption that corporations are the only ones who benefit from this though. I didn't bring this up in the point about the campaign donations, but the same rules that apply to corporations should apply to unions as well (and all organizations, whether profit or non-profit). It's kinda hard to take someone's claims that they want to make things "fair" when they constantly make exceptions for organizations politically aligned with their "side".

8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.


Constitutional issues aside, I'm not sure what they're really going for here. And I'm betting that they don't either. They just assume it's anti-corporation so it must be good. Personhood status does not protect the corporation from being sued for its actions (and they make great big targets btw). It also does not prevent the people making decisions from being subject to criminal charges for their actions.

I suspect many people don't understand that there is no such thing as an "owner" of a corporation (not a traditional corporation for which this legal status applies anyway). I also suspect that many people don't understand that being treated as a person under the law isn't some special benefit. It's a recognition that since a corporation isn't owned by a single person or even a small number of people, it should be treated as a separate entity. Otherwise, every single investor in a corporation could be sued for anything the corporation does. But absent that, the corporation couldn't be sued separately. It's a plus/minus really and not something to get worked up about.




There. That good enough?

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 6:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Oct 04 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
You don't see why someone would want to eliminate personhood for corporations? Smiley: dubious

For someone who spends half his time screaming about states rights, you seem to have never bothered to think about why corporations were originally illegal in the US...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#115 Oct 04 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You don't see why someone would want to eliminate personhood for corporations? Smiley: dubious


Of course I see why they'd want to do it. It would allow the government to deny equal protection to corporations. It's a whole topic by itself, but my point here is that those calling for it in this case do so because it's a "corporation" that is treated as a person under the law. But the same rulings apply to every organization made up of a group of people. So unions, corporations, non-profits, the local VFW, and the very groups who are marching in the protests on Wall Street right now. All of them are protected from the law treating them unfairly and without due process.


I doubt seriously that those supporting that position realize that it's not just about corporations. They're just repeating "corporations==bad!" and not really thinking the issue through (or even starting to think about it at all).

Quote:
For someone who spends half his time screaming about states rights, you seem to have never bothered to think about why corporations were originally illegal in the US...


They were not illegal. They also were not the same as what we think of as corporations today either. Corporations back then were generally organizations operating under a special charter from the government which gave them special authority in some area. They were really far more like privately licensed monopolies which the government handed out. About the only things similar today to those style of corporations would be broadcast corporations. They're handed exclusive license to some set of bandwidth for purpose of providing communication and in return are required to comply with certain regulations and government uses of their operation.


And they weren't illegal. They were just not issued by the federal government. Not the same thing. And again, they were not remotely similar to modern corporations like the ones that these protesters are complaining about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Oct 04 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Their issue is specifically that it allows for corporate leaders to exploit a company for ends that hurt everyone else, without having to suffer at all for it.

And no. The closest thing to a corporation to exist before the IR was a trust-based coalition. But those were ALSO technically illegal, at least interstate ones were. It was NOT a corporation, which were eventually legalized (NJ being the first state to do so). They did spawn pseudo-monopolies, but they were basically the same as modern corporations, just without the international aspect.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#117 Oct 04 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And just because it's funny as hell (and ironic as hell in this context):

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You don't see why someone would want to eliminate personhood for corporations? Smiley: dubious


Because they want to eliminate corporate income taxes, maybe? Think about it. The same group of people arguing that they need to change the laws to prevent corporations like GE from paying zero income tax is also arguing to eliminate the personhood status which makes it possible to tax corporate income in the first place. Like I said: Ironic as hell. And it's one of several indications that the folks who came up with this list have no freaking clue what they're talking about.




Edited, Oct 4th 2011 7:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Oct 04 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Just curious, but when were these demands released? I've gone ten pages through Google and can't find anything related to these demands that are more than a day old. [Edit] And I'd like an actual source, preferably with a timestamp. Seems awful suspicious to me.

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 10:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Oct 04 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Their issue is specifically that it allows for corporate leaders to exploit a company for ends that hurt everyone else, without having to suffer at all for it.


Except to the extent that they are personally invested in the corporation. And if they are "corporate leaders" (what do you think that means?) they must be significant investors in said corporation. What it also does is protect the average working stiff who buys shares of stock from being sued for everything that a corporation owes because he's a part owner as well. The asset protection aspect of a corporation benefits the non-rich far more than the rich btw. Absent that legal condition, the most common route to wealth for working and middle class people would be closed (or at least a hell of a lot riskier).

The protection of assets outside the corporation is only one aspect of this too. The bigger aspect is that of taxation (as I mentioned). If the corporation can't be treated as a person then it cannot be taxed separately. Each individual investor would have to be taxed. Um... Of course we do tax dividends on shares in corporations already, so the net effect is a "free tax" on business which would not otherwise have existed.

Another aspect is due process. If a corporation cannot be treated as a person, then it puts any contracts it holds in question (which goes both ways). It also become subject to arbitrary legal changes which we would not apply to a person. You and I are protected from the government passing a law which targets us individually. The government can't pass a law that says: "The state may seize all of Iddigory's assets and give them to gbaji". If corporations are not treated as people and protected similarly, then the government could pass a law saying that all the assets of one corporation can be seized and given to another (imagine what this would do to lobbying?!), or taken by the government itself.

So the government can't take your property from you without due process *unless* that property comes in the form of assets owned by a corporation purchased with the value of the stock you own. Of course, if all the assets are taken, the stock becomes worth zero, doesn't it? That effectively allows the government to seize your property without due process *unless* we treat property held by a corporation the same as that held by a person.


There are a whole number of very very very good reasons to treat corporations as persons under the law. There are pretty much zero not to. It's pure rhetoric. A bunch of ignorant people who've been convinced that it's some kind of travesty of the law rant about how corporations aren't people (no one said they were btw), all the while having no freaking clue what they're actually talking about or the ramifications if they were to actually succeed in what they claim to want to do.


Can you give me a single concrete reason why corporate personhood is bad? And not some vague "corporate leaders can do bad things without paying for it" BS. A real reason. Give me an example.

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Oct 05 2011 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Just curious, but when were these demands released? I've gone ten pages through Google and can't find anything related to these demands that are more than a day old. [Edit] And I'd like an actual source, preferably with a timestamp. Seems awful suspicious to me.

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 10:12pm by lolgaxe


I had heard about them them early last week. Never actually tried to find them though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#121 Oct 05 2011 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
That's about as reliable as gbaji's "its obvious", given your stance on this. Keeping quiet may have been better.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#122 Oct 05 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
A little while ago on the Today show, they ran a segment about these protests. They said the protesters demands have yet to be made clear. It's just general belly-aching right now. /shrug
#123 Oct 05 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
NYTimes articles were announcing that they had released a list of their demands early last week. If you look back at articles linked here, I'm sure you'd see the references.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 Oct 05 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
As far as I know they were really only codified in the last couple of days; the FOX News story on the fake ones was from yesterday, as was the Washington Times article. Even now it's a list-in-progress; there are like 15 or so points they think are important to the protesters, those 8 are just the ones most of the voters agreed on.

As the protesters have no real leadership it's difficult to say "This is what we believe in" as a whole group. That list is from the Occupy Wall Street site though, one of the most popular groups that's been hosting pictures and forums of all the protests in New York and has created "Occupy" affiliate sites for other cities as well.
#125 Oct 05 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Good to know. I've heard that they have been holding councils to organize the protest lately--I imagine that these demands are from that.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#126 Oct 05 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The Protesters have been Occupying Maine for a couple days now. I predict with the incoming cold weather the numbers will thin.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 332 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (332)