[Jimmy]

DeeperThought, on 20 October 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

We don't need to "counteract" them. All we have to do is stand back and enjoy the show. Besides, if they were smart and well-organized, they would be able to weed out the troublemakers. It would be good publicity for them if they could identify some paid infiltrators, so it doesn't say much for the movement if there are such infiltrators and they can't expose them.

What do you mean we? Sorry to say it, but you're not the 1%. You might disagree with the movement, but you're in the same boat they are. Anyway, who, exactly, is supposed to weed out infiltrators? This isn't a tea party, there are all kinds of people here with different agendas, and most people don't know the other people there. The whole point of an infiltrator is that it's hard to snuff them out.

DeeperThought, on 20 October 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

The results are interesting. 84% of the surveyed protesters did not know that Dodd-Frank was the recently enacted financial regulation bill. 68% did not know that S.E.C. stands for "The Securities and Exchange Commission." (I would think the letters would give it away). Only 12% knew that the top federal income tax rate for the richest 1% was somewhere between 25% and 50% of income (the correct answer is 35%). The other 88% either did not know, or thought it was lower. But most telling, 94% believe that the government spends more on the military than on anything else. In fact, health care and pensions accounts for a whopping 43% of the federal budget, while the military spending accounts for 20%, which doesn't even make it a close second.

But who did they survey? It's really easy to skew facts or survey retards. I'm not going to doubt there are hipster-derps out there to be cool, but a hipster-derp cannot come up with an idea like this that actually combats a real issue.

Mad Max RW, on 21 October 2011 - 05:08 AM, said:

Funny you mention that. In the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street they had craigslist job ads up offering $350 to $650 a week for people just to stand there holding signs. Days before it started they mysteriously disappeared. Oh, and the Working Families Party, who also gets funding from SEIU, was behind it and is currently on the ground at Zuccotti Park. Using Google you can find it all in about 30 seconds.

I wouldn't doubt it, and that would explain the hipster-derps on the ground there.

Descent, on 21 October 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

As much as I love shit (Raab Himself is my homeboy), I wouldn't shit on a random dudes porch.

There is nothing I love more than a well done shit prank. CKY's "Shit Dollar" routine is one of the greatest pranks ever.

But come on. Shtting on random doorsteps? What the fuck? Are you 12? They didn't do anything to you.

And seriously, why the hell are we harassing people on their way to work? 95% of the people in the financial system have done nothing wrong and don't know how screwed up everything really is. Let's blame the conspirators, not the pawns.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense that the real protestors would be doing this. I mean, these people have to eat, drink etc. It's easy enough to go "Oh yeah, I'll go the Crack-Mart, get a Coke, and take a shit." However, it's really easy to give a bum $10 and tell him to do just about anything. I'm not buying that a large percentage of this is actually going on. The local zombies just want the protestors to leave, of course they're gonna start making shit up. I mean, who the fuck would complain that New York is dirty?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

However we want to look at this protest, it appears as though city and state governments are starting to take action with regards to kicking the protesters out (at least, they are in Atlanta and New York City). You can complain all you want about the media not giving a protest a fair shake, but by that same token, the protesters should be using the media coverage that they are receiving to actually do something and build a foundation based upon their message. That's what the Tea Party did (I know, I keep coming back to the Tea Party, but I am seeing way too many parallels between that movement and this one), even if it doesn't exactly reflect the original tenets of the grassroots movement. Mayors and commissioners are getting pissed off at the protesters and they're going to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

[Jimmy]

Of course, and I agree with you. They're not quite handling it right from an organization aspect, but still, something has to be done. As soon as they try to forcefully take them out, and solve it with more cops, that's when shit's gonna hit the fan and you'll have full scale riots.

[Mad Max RW]

The protesters need a martyr to instigate riots. If the cops shoot and kill just one person, deserved or by accident (guy pretends to pull out a gun and the cops shoot him on the spot), that's when the shit will hit the fan.

Also, even the homeless think the Occupy Wall Street protesters are disgusting: http://www.liveleak....=908_1319492371

[Danukem]

The protesters seem to be mostly unemployed white liberals, with some union workers and some celebrity visitors, and a smattering of other groups. They may say that they represent 99% of the population, but it is definitely not a broad based movement. Moreover, they are more annoying than intimidating. They are liberals that don't believe in owning guns (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions here and there) and don't have military training (again, I'm sure there are exceptions). And it's obvious that they aren't very well organized. The truly dangerous folks in the U.S. are the military veterans, the street gangs, and the right-wing militia types (and yes there is some overlap between those groups). There don't seem to be many of those dangerous folks in the occupy movement. ( Edit: By saying that veterans are "dangerous", I mean that they could do a lot of damage if they wanted to; I don't mean that they are prone to go on rampages) By and large, the protesters are hippies and hippie wannabes, so I'm not too worried about them rioting. However, it may be that if riots start, the gang bangers and street thugs will join in just for fun, and to show solidarity. That is a concern. But there is no evidence yet that it will go down that way. A more likely conclusion is that some Democrat politicians will make them some vague promises, then the movement leaders will declare victory and go home before winter sets in.

[Person of Color]

DeeperThought, on 25 October 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

The protesters seem to be mostly unemployed white liberals, with some union workers and some celebrity visitors, and a smattering of other groups. They may say that they represent 99% of the population, but it is definitely not a broad based movement. Moreover, they are more annoying than intimidating. They are liberals that don't believe in owning guns (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions here and there) and don't have military training (again, I'm sure there are exceptions). And it's obvious that they aren't very well organized. The truly dangerous folks in the U.S. are the military veterans, the street gangs, and the right-wing militia types (and yes there is some overlap between those groups). There don't seem to be many of those dangerous folks in the occupy movement. ( Edit: By saying that veterans are "dangerous", I mean that they could do a lot of damage if they wanted to; I don't mean that they are prone to go on rampages) By and large, the protesters are hippies and hippie wannabes, so I'm not too worried about them rioting. However, it may be that if riots start, the gang bangers and street thugs will join in just for fun, and to show solidarity. That is a concern. But there is no evidence yet that it will go down that way. A more likely conclusion is that some Democrat politicians will make them some vague promises, then the movement leaders will declare victory and go home before winter sets in.

Not likely. I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of those protesters have lost faith in the two party system.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

DeeperThought, on 25 October 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

But I predict that the vast majority of the occupiers will end up voting for Obama (and for other Democrats down ticket), just as the vast majority of tea-partiers will end up voting for the Republican candidate and other Republicans.

You don't have to predict, really. You can just make an inference from Zogby polling data. To wit:

Zogby Polling said:

Only 9% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Occupy Wall Street. Over eight in ten Democrats (84%) view the movement favorably, while a minority 38% of independents is positive toward the movement.

Nearly one-half (45%) of Republicans are favorable toward Wall Street investors and big banks, compared to only 8% of Democrats and 22% of independents.

Two-thirds of Democrats (64%) say Occupy Wall Streets goals are clear, compared to 8% among Republicans and 31% among independents.

More than eight in ten Democrats (85%) agree that persistent protest can bring change, compared to 48% of Republicans and 60% of independents.

[Mad Max RW]

Nearly every single one of the protesters at Occupy Wall Street voted for Obama and when asked say they will vote for him again. Funny, because Obama and other Democratic leaders received more money from Wall Street than their Republican counterparts.

[Danukem]

Thanks, guys, I was too lazy to find and link to the research myself.

[Person of Color]

DeeperThought, on 25 October 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

I hope that is true, because it means that they either won't vote, or will waste their votes on a third party candidate, instead of helping to reelect Obama. But I predict that the vast majority of the occupiers will end up voting for Obama (and for other Democrats down ticket), just as the vast majority of tea-partiers will end up voting for the Republican candidate and other Republicans. It's an empirical question and I'm sure there will be an analysis after the 2012 election that should be able to settle it.

What are our options? I don't see Paul having a snowball's chance in hell unless the entire financial system comes crashing down before the elections. Voting for a third party isn't wasting your vote, unfortunately we are taught to believe that.

DeeperThought, on 25 October 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

You guys (e.g. Decent, Captain Awesome) seem think you are cynical observers, talking about how fucked up things are and how there needs to be revolution, and so on (I'm paraphrasing, of course). But to my mind you aren't cynical enough. Yeah, things are totally fucked up and there does need to be a revolution of sorts (although we don't agree on the nature of the fuckupedness or what a good revolution would look like), so you are right about that. But if you think this little occupy movement represents a big change in the status quo, I'm afraid you are being naive. I don't want to have a big argument about it, though, since it will play out soon enough.

Actually, I don't think OWS is going to be the primary motion for change. It's the first herpes sore of the worst outbreak a whore could ever have. It will shrink during the winter, lazily grow during the spring, but regardless of what happens it won't blow up until the financial system starts to have major systemic failures. There will be protests and riots everywhere when we finally get thrown into a depression.

Mad Max RW, on 26 October 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Nearly every single one of the protesters at Occupy Wall Street voted for Obama and when asked say they will vote for him again. Funny, because Obama and other Democratic leaders received more money from Wall Street than their Republican counterparts.

Why am I not surprised? If Paul isn't on a third ticket I'm voting for Obama again, and I hate his guts. What are my options? Romney? Ugh. He's a slut. He's the only politician I've ever seen who doesn't stand for anything. Yet the same people who are kissing his ass criticized John Kerry for "flip flopping" in 2004...and Kerry was changing his opinion on things years after they happened. C'mon. Seriously guys? Fucking idiots.

The Republicans don't want to win this election. They know the economy has nowhere to go but down and they don't want one of their own in office when it finally happens. Not that it matters...I don't see either party surviving the next crisis anyway.

I'd like to see if these protesters approve of Obama's performance...I think the number will be higher now because the protest is being flooded with casuals. People will still cast votes when they think it's between a douche and a turd.

As for donations, the team who has the largest chance of winning gets the most donations. The financial giants want to control as much as possible when a new administration is ushered in, especially after a controversial bailout.

[Mad Max RW]

You can do what I've been doing the last three elections. Write in "none of the above" or a no confidence vote. Living in Connecticut, one of the most liberal states in all of the country, my vote in the presidential elections doesn't count for shit anyway.

[Person of Color]

Yeah, you guys are irrelevant even in the Tri-State area.

[Jimmy]

DeeperThought, on 25 October 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

You guys (e.g. Decent, Captain Awesome) seem think you are cynical observers, talking about how fucked up things are and how there needs to be revolution, and so on (I'm paraphrasing, of course). But to my mind you aren't cynical enough. Yeah, things are totally fucked up and there does need to be a revolution of sorts (although we don't agree on the nature of the fuckupedness or what a good revolution would look like), so you are right about that. But if you think this little occupy movement represents a big change in the status quo, I'm afraid you are being naive. I don't want to have a big argument about it, though, since it will play out soon enough.

No, I do not think that. I do however think it's a good thing. These powerful assholes have one advantage over us: Nobody knows who they are or what they do, well most people don't. It reminds me of the WTO protests, that got the WTO out there and how NAFTA and the GATT were shams. I don't care if the Occupy movement fails, long as it plants seeds in peoples heads. We've all seen that World Trade is a death machine, but people are slowly waking up to the fact that corporate greed is also a death machine. I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-American. We could really use another Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Also, I know my vote doesn't matter any way (I'm way more interested in local elections) so I'm throwing my vote in for Jello Biafra. I was thinking about Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure now.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Descent, on 26 October 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Why am I not surprised? If Paul isn't on a third ticket I'm voting for Obama again, and I hate his guts. What are my options? Romney? Ugh. He's a slut. He's the only politician I've ever seen who doesn't stand for anything. Yet the same people who are kissing his ass criticized John Kerry for "flip flopping" in 2004...and Kerry was changing his opinion on things years after they happened. C'mon. Seriously guys? Fucking idiots.

I'm one of the few people in this forum, let alone this thread, that is most likely to vote Republican, and frankly even I don't like Romney. Similar to the reasons that you stated, I don't know what he stands for, and the only primary motivator there seems to be for me to vote for him is the mere fact that he's Republican in name. Look, I'm a fiscal conservative, but my social leanings tend to be to the left of the Republican party. The way the political system is, I can't vote for the candidate that I want because that candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the election. People like Romney will win the primaries because they have troves of cash and connections to draw upon for their campaign efforts, whereas other Republican candidates who may be more identifiable (not that there are many) will be cast aside in the public eye since they do not have nearly as many assets to utilize. They may even lose their shirt from all of the campaign debt.

I don't support a party out of blind faith. If two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle make a similar mistake, I'll call both of them out. Party name means nothing to me other than a very general concept as to what policy positions a party may adopt that I support.

I don't think any of you have cause to worry about Obama losing 2012. The scenario that seems most likely to occur out of this election, at least to me, is that Romney or Gingrich will win the Republican primaries - and note that Cain is leading in the polls but only because he hasn't been properly vetted yet. I support the guy, but he's going to be majorly scrutinized come December. Once the primaries are over, Ron Paul will get pissed off and run third party to spite the Republicans. Final election result will be something like: Obama - 47%, Romney - 38%, Paul - 12%.

[Danukem]

The Mighty Bison, on 26 October 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

People like Romney will win the primaries because they have troves of cash and connections to draw upon for their campaign efforts, whereas other Republican candidates who may be more identifiable (not that there are many) will be cast aside in the public eye since they do not have nearly as many assets to utilize. They may even lose their shirt from all of the campaign debt.

Rick Perry has plenty of connections and is a good fund raiser. The reason that Romney is kicking his butt right now is that Perry is not very good in the debates, and Perry doesn't seem to have thought through his positions on a lot of issues. Romney may be a flip-flopper, but at least he seems knowledgeable and polished. He will end up being a better nominee than McCain, and have a better running mate (how could he not?), so his chances of winning the general election aren't bad at all.

EDIT: Here's a good blog post about why Perry is not going to win the nomination. It has nothing to do with money and connections, and everything to do with the fact that he is a poor candidate: http://www.powerline...-prime-time.php

The Mighty Bison, on 26 October 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

I don't think any of you have cause to worry about Obama losing 2012. The scenario that seems most likely to occur out of this election, at least to me, is that Romney or Gingrich will win the Republican primaries - and note that Cain is leading in the polls but only because he hasn't been properly vetted yet. I support the guy, but he's going to be majorly scrutinized come December. Once the primaries are over, Ron Paul will get pissed off and run third party to spite the Republicans. Final election result will be something like: Obama - 47%, Romney - 38%, Paul - 12%.

I would be amazed if Gingrich won the nomination. But more importantly, I doubt that Paul will run as a third party candidate and that he would get 12% if he did. And even if that did come to pass, he might draw at least as many votes from Obama as he would draw from the Republican nominee.

[Mad Max RW]

It looks like the protesters may have gotten their martyr in Oakland. http://news.yahoo.co...-203808915.html

You couldn't make up a better story.

[ReaperMan]

Descent, on 26 October 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Why am I not surprised? If Paul isn't on a third ticket I'm voting for Obama again, and I hate his guts.

Or you could vote for some other random guy.

[Jimmy]

Mad Max RW, on 26 October 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

It looks like the protesters may have gotten their martyr in Oakland. http://news.yahoo.co...-203808915.html

You couldn't make up a better story.

This isn't such a big deal, this kinda shit happens in Oakland every day.
If people in other cities use this as an excuse to be dicks to other cops then these protests are done for.

[Mad Max RW]

You can bet your ass they will capitalize on his image, especially if he dies. For their movement to gain traction on the left it's the logical thing to do.

Video is up showing what is allegedly the same guy getting hit and carried away with people screaming "Medic!". http://www.liveleak....=511_1319628588

Expect to see it in the news soon.

[Jimmy]

What a bunch of dumbasses. You never pick up a guy who has been injured and you're not quite sure how, and you sure as shit don't start yelling at someone in shock. Also, lol at them for thinking an EMT would be anywhere nearby.

[Mad Max RW]

Call me sick, but the "MEDIC!" yelling gave me TFC flashbacks.

[Person of Color]

Thank God, I thought I was the only sick fuck thinking that.

[Kathy]

What's a TFC?

[Person of Color]

Captain Awesome, on 26 October 2011 - 04:25 PM, said:

What a bunch of dumbasses. You never pick up a guy who has been injured and you're not quite sure how, and you sure as shit don't start yelling at someone in shock. Also, lol at them for thinking an EMT would be anywhere nearby.

I witnessed a pretty nasty car crash last month. The guy two cars in front of me hit a pedestrian. Deaf guy. He was walking in the middle of the road at night. There was blood everywhere, he was leaking really bad. First thing I did was pull over, ask if they had called 911 yet, and I yelled "DON'T FUCKING MOVE HIM! IF HIS NECK'S BROKEN YOU'LL PARALYZE HIM!"

No one was trying to pick him up but you can never be too sure. People are morons.

People were sneaking a peek and driving off, but the most fucked up by far was the guy in front of me. He saw everything happen but just passed them and drove away like nothing transpired. All I saw was sudden braking, hazard lights, and then a body when I tried to pass them.

Fucking assholes.

[Jimmy]

How does I reads? I'ms too stupids to figures out how to lives life ya know.

[The Commander]

Helel, on 26 October 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

What's a TFC?

Team Fortress Classic


Click play to hear the "MEDIC!" sound. (0:39)