I have pulled thousands of credit reports in my prior career. Most excuses from havimg poor/low scores are for medical collections or divorce in my experience.
That is why I pay for health insurance...to mitigate the risk
but not all can afford health insurance...plus I know the bs with car/home insurance...my rates go up and I never use it...I can just imagine how much health insurance would cost.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i live in the most deprived place in the south west of England NOT MY WORDS that's wot the papers said anyway we now have a occupy Boscombe its hilarious all it is is the local homeless pitching up they don't care about politics they just want a place to kip and get drunk its great ..good on em
i love my town
its hilarious all it is is the local homeless pitching up they don't care about politics they just want a place to kip and get drunk its great ..good on em
pretty much sums up what the occupy "movement" in the states is
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
"This Black Friday, as millions of Americans scramble to find the "best deals" on consumer goods, thousands of Chinese manufacturing workers are striking to demand livable wages, job security, and other basic rights. In Huangjiang alone, 8,000 striking shoe factory workers took the streets Thursday, blocking roads and standing down lines of riot police. Their factory, owned Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, is a major provider to the sportswear company New Balance.
It seems fair to say these workers are striking for a "new balance" with their management, and the system of global exploitation that management serves. Facing police repression and media censorship, striking Chinese workers are standing up against the same unfair economic system we are fighting on Wall Street and across the world. Today, Occupiers everywhere are standing up to Boycott Black Friday in an effort to raise awareness about the exploitation and inequalities that produce the goods Americans purchase.
In a rush to get the best deals on merchandise, some shoppers in the U.S. have already turned on one another. News agencies are reporting that a woman in California pepper-sprayed another group of shoppers so she could get a better place in line. This is exactly what the 1% wants: They don't have to pepper-spray the 99% in the United States, because we are pepper-spraying one another, and we are too distracted by consumption to notice that the majority of the products we buy in North America are being produced by workers who are struggling for their basic rights abroad."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Some in the media have put those who are part of the OWS movement have been cast in a bad light. While I beleive everyone is should be allowed to make a few bucks what I am against is corporations taken every penny a person has left. It is capitalism run amok. This is not the America I want to leave for my children. Things need to change.
The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011
US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.
But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.
To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.
I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.
Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.
That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.
The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.
The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.
When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.
For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).
In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.
But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profits is less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.
Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.
So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.
Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.
Occupy London sets out agenda on how it wants to change the economic world
Campaigners' policy statement calls for an end to tax havens and tax avoidance
Peter Walker
The Guardian, Monday 28 November 2011
The Occupy London movement has agreed its first specific set of proposals about corporations, just over six weeks since it first set up camp outside St Paul's cathedral to campaign against the perceived excesses and injustices of the global financial system.
While the protest has gathered considerable publicity and expanded to three sites – as well as St Paul's, there are offshoot camps in Finsbury Square, further east, and inside a vacant office complex nearby owned by the Swiss bank USB – it has faced criticism about a lack of concrete demands. Agreeing these has proved a complicated process, as all decision are reached by consensus at mass meetings.
The first policy statement on corporations calls for an end to tax havens and tax avoidance, more transparency over business lobbying, and legal reforms to make individual executives more liable for the consequences of their decisions.
"Globally, corporations deprive the public purse of hundreds of billions of pounds each year, leaving insufficient funds to provide people with fair living standards. We must abolish tax havens and complex tax avoidance schemes, and ensure corporations pay tax that accurately reflects their real profits," the statement said.
On lobbying, it calls for laws to ensure "full and public transparency of all corporate lobbying activities". Finally, the statement argues that executives must be "personally liable for their role in the misdeeds of their corporations and duly charged for all criminal behaviour".
Soon after the first camp was set up on the western edge of St Paul's, after police prevented activists basing themselves near the headquarters of the London Stock Exchange, the group issued general proposals, calling the current economic system "unsustainable" and opposing public spending cuts. The only other such statement called for more transparency and democracy within the Corporation of London, the governing authority within the City district, which owns some of the land adjoining St Paul's and which is taking legal action to evict the campers.
"From the moment the Occupy London Stock Exchange occupation started, in the full glare of the media and in the court of public opinion, we have continually been asked, 'What do you want?' "What are your demands?'" said Jamie Kelsey, a member of the corporations policy group.
"We are calling time on a system where corporates and their employees pursue profit at all costs. Just as corporates have played their role in the iniquities of the current system, they are also part of the solution and we invite them to join this important conversation."
occupy wal mart...because in america it is ok to pitch a tent for capitalism, but not for democracy...
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
uhhh ... the fact that this is the post you chose to respond to says more than that analogy ... i the past 2 pages alone issues such as affordable health care, corporate tax havens and federal involvement in local policing have been brought up ... you don't comment on that but pick this one to? ... :(
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
uhhh ... the fact that this is the post you chose to respond to says more than that analogy ... i the past 2 pages alone issues such as affordable health care, corporate tax havens and federal involvement in local policing have been brought up ... you don't comment on that but pick this one to? ... :(
I just got back online and started from the last page working back. But thanks for being the thread police. Let me know ahead of time what is and isn't an allowable post, mkay?
I just got back online and started from the last page working back. But thanks for being the thread police. Let me know ahead of time what is and isn't an allowable post, mkay?
you can post whatever you want - i'm not policing anything ... i think people who don't support OWS are looking for reasons to discredit the movement and so nitpicking at posts like gimme's is a great example ...
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
so you are saying there is no merit to my position that people are allowed to camp out for capitalism and if they are going to spend money but when they camp out to make their voices heard they get shut down.
good to know what you stand for...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
those camping out at say, Walmart, were camping out on Walmarts property (leased probably but theirs to use) and are invited to do so. Those camping out for the occupy movements are not on their own property, they did not pay for it and are not welcome.
those camping out at say, Walmart, were camping out on Walmarts property (leased probably but theirs to use) and are invited to do so. Those camping out for the occupy movements are not on their own property, they did not pay for it and are not welcome.
horrible comparison.
cincybearcat knows whats what on this one...
most of the ows people paid taxes. it is public property and they paid for it.
but keep trying to discredit my point that in america it is ok to camp out for capitalism and give money to corporate retailers but illegal to camp out and exercise your first amendment rights to free speech and freedom to assemble...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I doubt many/any of them paid any taxes... even if they did, your point makes it sound like someone who gets pulled over by a cop and says "hey bud, I pay your salary"
"We want to make sure that everybody knows the park is closed and there are services available, that there are alternative ways to protest," Villaraigosa said in an interview with MSNBC. "By the way, we will be opening up the steps of City Hall for protests, they just can't camp out."
those camping out at say, Walmart, were camping out on Walmarts property (leased probably but theirs to use) and are invited to do so. Those camping out for the occupy movements are not on their own property, they did not pay for it and are not welcome.
horrible comparison.
cincybearcat knows whats what on this one...
most of the ows people paid taxes. it is public property and they paid for it.
but keep trying to discredit my point that in america it is ok to camp out for capitalism and give money to corporate retailers but illegal to camp out and exercise your first amendment rights to free speech and freedom to assemble...
it is okay to camp out. they did it for months. Even though most places it is illegal to camp out overnight in city parks. they do close. part of it is for safety. We have the right to peaceably assemble, and there are procedures in place that ensure that right. If you don't like them, and think that the permit process is stupid and that we should be able to assemble when we want and where we want on public property I suggest you begin to support a smaller government with local candidates that do not support odd city ordinances(if they even exist anymore).
Camping at a retailer on their property is up to them. If they would like to allow it fine, if not that is fine too. Up to them on their property. the retailers downtown Minneapolis have to get permits from the city in order for people to camp out in our skyways. Pretty standard stuff.
The best way for the OWS to be effective is participate in democracy. Actually vote for change...where they protest and how they are allowed to doesn't matter in the end...all that matters is that they ALL stay engaged and stay active and do not get discouraged. I believe they can do some good, and probably already have...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
so you are saying there is no merit to my position that people are allowed to camp out for capitalism and if they are going to spend money but when they camp out to make their voices heard they get shut down.
good to know what you stand for...
Yep I'm saying there is no merit because people were allowed to camp out on PUBLIC property for quite some time.
And what is allowed on PRIVATE PROPERTY is up to the owner.
I just got back online and started from the last page working back. But thanks for being the thread police. Let me know ahead of time what is and isn't an allowable post, mkay?
you can post whatever you want - i'm not policing anything ... i think people who don't support OWS are looking for reasons to discredit the movement and so nitpicking at posts like gimme's is a great example ...
I wasn't discrediting the movement, just the dumb ass analogy that shouldn't have ever been made since it is so utterly ridiculous and not based in any realm of reality.
I think that some of the people protesting are doing everyone a service. And some others are doing those people a great disservice.
it is a very relevent analogy considering that the protests have been put down, in many cases violently and for no good reason, while it is ok to camp out for a few days if you are going to buy a damn 52" tv...
it is like lennon said "if people demand peace instead of another television set, then there will be oeace." the same can be said for change.
do you know that cities are spending more money on clearing out ows than it is on doing anything at all to help their homeless?
with posts like yours i think you are just baiting people.
I wasn't discrediting the movement, just the dumb ass analogy that shouldn't have ever been made since it is so utterly ridiculous and not based in any realm of reality.
I think that some of the people protesting are doing everyone a service. And some others are doing those people a great disservice.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it's a different culture down there ...
:(
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
but not all can afford health insurance...plus I know the bs with car/home insurance...my rates go up and I never use it...I can just imagine how much health insurance would cost.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i love my town
pretty much sums up what the occupy "movement" in the states is
"This Black Friday, as millions of Americans scramble to find the "best deals" on consumer goods, thousands of Chinese manufacturing workers are striking to demand livable wages, job security, and other basic rights. In Huangjiang alone, 8,000 striking shoe factory workers took the streets Thursday, blocking roads and standing down lines of riot police. Their factory, owned Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, is a major provider to the sportswear company New Balance.
It seems fair to say these workers are striking for a "new balance" with their management, and the system of global exploitation that management serves. Facing police repression and media censorship, striking Chinese workers are standing up against the same unfair economic system we are fighting on Wall Street and across the world. Today, Occupiers everywhere are standing up to Boycott Black Friday in an effort to raise awareness about the exploitation and inequalities that produce the goods Americans purchase.
In a rush to get the best deals on merchandise, some shoppers in the U.S. have already turned on one another. News agencies are reporting that a woman in California pepper-sprayed another group of shoppers so she could get a better place in line. This is exactly what the 1% wants: They don't have to pepper-spray the 99% in the United States, because we are pepper-spraying one another, and we are too distracted by consumption to notice that the majority of the products we buy in North America are being produced by workers who are struggling for their basic rights abroad."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
occupy wal mart...because in america it is ok to pitch a tent for capitalism, but not for democracy...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
OWS: :thumbup:
Walmart: :thumbdown:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Thank god I read enough funny shit today to stave off the depression the above would otherwise bring on.
Sigh...
The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy
The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011
US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.
But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.
To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.
I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.
Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.
That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.
The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.
The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.
When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.
For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).
In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.
But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profits is less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.
Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.
So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.
Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.
noticed no one commented on the fact ron paul supports OWS ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Occupy London sets out agenda on how it wants to change the economic world
Campaigners' policy statement calls for an end to tax havens and tax avoidance
Peter Walker
The Guardian, Monday 28 November 2011
The Occupy London movement has agreed its first specific set of proposals about corporations, just over six weeks since it first set up camp outside St Paul's cathedral to campaign against the perceived excesses and injustices of the global financial system.
While the protest has gathered considerable publicity and expanded to three sites – as well as St Paul's, there are offshoot camps in Finsbury Square, further east, and inside a vacant office complex nearby owned by the Swiss bank USB – it has faced criticism about a lack of concrete demands. Agreeing these has proved a complicated process, as all decision are reached by consensus at mass meetings.
The first policy statement on corporations calls for an end to tax havens and tax avoidance, more transparency over business lobbying, and legal reforms to make individual executives more liable for the consequences of their decisions.
"Globally, corporations deprive the public purse of hundreds of billions of pounds each year, leaving insufficient funds to provide people with fair living standards. We must abolish tax havens and complex tax avoidance schemes, and ensure corporations pay tax that accurately reflects their real profits," the statement said.
On lobbying, it calls for laws to ensure "full and public transparency of all corporate lobbying activities". Finally, the statement argues that executives must be "personally liable for their role in the misdeeds of their corporations and duly charged for all criminal behaviour".
Soon after the first camp was set up on the western edge of St Paul's, after police prevented activists basing themselves near the headquarters of the London Stock Exchange, the group issued general proposals, calling the current economic system "unsustainable" and opposing public spending cuts. The only other such statement called for more transparency and democracy within the Corporation of London, the governing authority within the City district, which owns some of the land adjoining St Paul's and which is taking legal action to evict the campers.
"From the moment the Occupy London Stock Exchange occupation started, in the full glare of the media and in the court of public opinion, we have continually been asked, 'What do you want?' "What are your demands?'" said Jamie Kelsey, a member of the corporations policy group.
"We are calling time on a system where corporates and their employees pursue profit at all costs. Just as corporates have played their role in the iniquities of the current system, they are also part of the solution and we invite them to join this important conversation."
This is truly one of the stupidest points to make. People were allowed to pitch tents for how long for OWS? How many days is someone pitching a tent in front of WalMart? Also, the parks where people were pitching their tents for OWS are public property. The other is private property. Just a really poor analogy that shows people are more interested in sensationalism then reality.
uhhh ... the fact that this is the post you chose to respond to says more than that analogy ... i the past 2 pages alone issues such as affordable health care, corporate tax havens and federal involvement in local policing have been brought up ... you don't comment on that but pick this one to? ... :(
I just got back online and started from the last page working back. But thanks for being the thread police. Let me know ahead of time what is and isn't an allowable post, mkay?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you can post whatever you want - i'm not policing anything ... i think people who don't support OWS are looking for reasons to discredit the movement and so nitpicking at posts like gimme's is a great example ...
good to know what you stand for...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
horrible comparison.
cincybearcat knows whats what on this one...
but keep trying to discredit my point that in america it is ok to camp out for capitalism and give money to corporate retailers but illegal to camp out and exercise your first amendment rights to free speech and freedom to assemble...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"We want to make sure that everybody knows the park is closed and there are services available, that there are alternative ways to protest," Villaraigosa said in an interview with MSNBC. "By the way, we will be opening up the steps of City Hall for protests, they just can't camp out."
it is okay to camp out. they did it for months. Even though most places it is illegal to camp out overnight in city parks. they do close. part of it is for safety. We have the right to peaceably assemble, and there are procedures in place that ensure that right. If you don't like them, and think that the permit process is stupid and that we should be able to assemble when we want and where we want on public property I suggest you begin to support a smaller government with local candidates that do not support odd city ordinances(if they even exist anymore).
Camping at a retailer on their property is up to them. If they would like to allow it fine, if not that is fine too. Up to them on their property. the retailers downtown Minneapolis have to get permits from the city in order for people to camp out in our skyways. Pretty standard stuff.
The best way for the OWS to be effective is participate in democracy. Actually vote for change...where they protest and how they are allowed to doesn't matter in the end...all that matters is that they ALL stay engaged and stay active and do not get discouraged. I believe they can do some good, and probably already have...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yep I'm saying there is no merit because people were allowed to camp out on PUBLIC property for quite some time.
And what is allowed on PRIVATE PROPERTY is up to the owner.
So, what do I stand for?
I wasn't discrediting the movement, just the dumb ass analogy that shouldn't have ever been made since it is so utterly ridiculous and not based in any realm of reality.
I think that some of the people protesting are doing everyone a service. And some others are doing those people a great disservice.
it is a very relevent analogy considering that the protests have been put down, in many cases violently and for no good reason, while it is ok to camp out for a few days if you are going to buy a damn 52" tv...
it is like lennon said "if people demand peace instead of another television set, then there will be oeace." the same can be said for change.
do you know that cities are spending more money on clearing out ows than it is on doing anything at all to help their homeless?
with posts like yours i think you are just baiting people.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."