Its been a while and I still haven't seen a thread on this, could it be that the media black out is just being too effective?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9o wY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV9uZ00bq D8

its a big enough event to deserve some media coverage, yet it gets none, why do you guys think this is, and do you think it is right?

I caught a glimpse of it before it actually started, (it was organized on 4chan in advance, yeh its Anonymous again) and the idea was to speak against the corruption that has engulfed the nation. "If you wan't a leader who is of the people by the people for the people, occupy wall street" was one of their ads. "get your money out of our government!" is one of their slogans.

These protests are peaceful, and you are hearing plenty of stories of police suppression, and it all started when they wanted to move the crowd somewhere else, some people were defiant and got arrested (meh) others however, weren't moving at the speed they would have liked and began to get rough with them too.

In all the videos the protests are a cluster fuck. Police don't have a real line anymore, they have their nets but are standing in the middle of everyone, people are wandering around accidentally getting too close to the cops and being knocked down and taken in, there is absolutely no order to the actions of these cops what so ever, other than to stay as a group and look like they are keeping order. (they are actually accomplishing the oposite)

What kind of Great Chinese Firewall kind of media have you been paying attention to?

Google News search for "wall street protest" has 3,000+ results in the last week alone.

It's been in major news sources like the New York Times, AP, Reuters, NPR among many others beyond just the first page of that google search link.

From what I have seen this seems to be the same old Bonaroo hippie march as every other protest in the past decade. If this were made up of even remotely average Americans, not career protestors, maybe the media would care.

Case in point, Wisconsin was made up of regular cheese eating Joes, and it got a ton of coverage. I get the feeling the media looks at this unshaven and unshowered bunch and says "again? What are these drop outs mad at now?" While yawning.

Yawn.

It's been reported on by most major outlets, MSNBCeven covered the police brutality.

But we're talking about a few thousand, at most, socailist-kiddies who protest at the drop of a hat. Other than police brutality, there's nothing to report.

"This just in, bunch of morons still in the same location as yesterday."

Pretty much what everyone else is saying. These people are just a bunch of unorganized fools who don't even understand in the first place what they're protesting. This is also why I dislike Anon, they use generalizations and idealism to get a rise out of the youth and generally anyone like minded to get them to protest without having any focus on what they're protesting. Also, they have no plan, no central leadership, and therefore no real voice, but yet idiots and naive people buy into what they say.

And like Camaro and Sadistic said, these aren't your average working Americans, just a minority of downtrodden people. If it were your average American, then I think there'd definitely be more focus on them.

And as for the police brutality statement, it's not police brutality imo until people are being shot at. Brutality is a term I'd use lightly in a case like this.

At 9/30/11 10:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Its been a while and I still haven't seen a thread on this, could it be that the media black out is just being too effective?

;;;As others have said there's lots of media reports on this .

People are slowly catching on that much of the financial problems have been cause by a small select group .
The commodities market, has done nothing by drive up prices we pay on the goods we need by speculators .
Bankers taking massive profits, from customers, yet paying pittences in interest to customers with large reserves.
Large American Comapnies laying off Americans, sending the jobs to third world countries, like India & China ...paying those workers a couple dollars a day. Then shipping the products back to the US of A & selling it for the same price they did when Americans made it !
Profit driven greed is destorying the economy, has putting tens of thousands out of work. Has moved much of the manufacturing infastructure out of the US !

Which means fewer have the ability to buy these goods, its a self made mess.
Which if allowed to contiue is going to bankrupt the country & its not just the US. The Corperate greed is wildly out of control everywhere .
But the problem the protestors have is its still a large enough group, with no single person or organization to focus their anger & concern at...wo they're taking on all of Wall Street. Which may be a large part of the problem, but they're not all of it.

There are some hippy socialist types at the protests but there a minority. Ironically I found a good video of the protests done by the toy channel on youtube . Some obviously look like socialist hippies , but there definitely a minority judging by the video.

How quickly some of you come to that conclusion is laughable though, "hurr durr socialist hippies "

well i guess they got the attention by now, took some time.

At 10/2/11 11:34 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well i guess they got the attention by now, took some time.

The attention really only came because Tony Balogna couldn't keep his pepper spray in his pants.

Living in the Northwest, this protest is nothing new to me. Frankly, it's no different than going downtown and seeing the college dropouts on the street searching for signatures to put Bush in jail, or name the crapper after Bush, or some other stupid and worthless cause.

Again, I repeat that so long as the people who are protesting are of no worth, I will not support this protest or anything.

People that protest are idiots and deserve to be shot to death.

Protesting is a rebellious act against this great nation and people who do not like how this nation is run should either be kicked out or locked up for good.

The whole freedom to protest was created by those who were treasonous against their own country.

At 10/2/11 06:35 PM, serving7 wrote: Faux-arch conservative stuff.

We see right through you little one. No one here is saying these people have no right to protest. What we are saying is that these people protest as a profession, so when this demographic protests it is nothing new.

At 10/2/11 06:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

We see right through you little one. No one here is saying these people have no right to protest. What we are saying is that these people protest as a profession, so when this demographic protests it is nothing new.

Dissenters gonna dissent, right? There's a reason some demographics protest frequently and it's not to spend more time in close quarters with the police, it's generaly because there's quite alot of things wrongs with society. The money and food is crap and you've to spend your time around annoying and often misguided Socialists. I actually had to correct a member of an Irish group, Socialist Worker's Party, when he said they were revolutionary, militant left wing group. They're actually reformists.

But that troll has you by the balls, I'm afraid, you can't tell people "if you don't like it then do something about it" and then trivialise those who do act on their beleifs. It's always the weirdos who act on these things first and gradualy Joe Schmoe gets sucked into it. You can't turn the concept of the Average Joe into a political activist or revolutionary, but you can expose him to enough of them until he decides he doesn't want to be Average Joe anymore. It's very rarely that sincere consensual change comes from the majority, generaly a movment just gets big enough to do its thing - the Nazi party in Germany, Russian Revolution, the American Revolutionary War. You'll never get an active majority.

And you can't seriously thing that strict market regulation is a bad thing or that Wall St. does not owe a serious debt to American society? I think their concerns are legitimate.

At 10/2/11 07:42 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I think their concerns are legitimate.

No doubting of the concerns here. Only doubting of their rudimentary economic knowledge.

For instance it's easy to protest the bailout when you don't realize that it was your savings that was actually bailed out.

Basically, they're wannabe socialist protestors, who don't have any real course of action other than just sit there and say that Wall St. is evil, and so on. It's really hard to treat these people seriously considering they're really just career protestors that range from your stereotypical hippies, to your college dropouts pissing and moaning about the problems, instead of finding a novel solution.

The average Joe isn't going to be attached to people like them at all, because it's virtually unrelateable to their problems, and they are just going to view them as upset whinos who completely missed the mark altogether. As for the police, I can't really say that what they did would qualify as police brutality, I mean no one really got shot with anything, so it's no harm, no foul.

An interesting (negative) perspectve on the protests.

At 10/2/11 09:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: An interesting (negative) perspectve on the protests.

Yay! Anothe stefbot fan :3

At 10/2/11 09:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: An interesting (negative) perspectve on the protests.

While I yawn at these protests I do think this guy kinda contradicts himself in the same manner he faults the hipsters for doing.

He faults the protestors for want the complicit party to fix Wall Street, adn then goes and says that actively guilty party should be the ones to do it... While both options are a pile of crap, his seems to be the stinky fly infested pile.

At 10/2/11 09:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/2/11 07:42 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I think their concerns are legitimate.

No doubting of the concerns here. Only doubting of their rudimentary economic knowledge.

For instance it's easy to protest the bailout when you don't realize that it was your savings that was actually bailed out.

economists were saying it would have been cheaper to pay off all the mortgages given to all those people than it was to bail out the bank. would have solved a few more problems too. alas the bank wouldn't get as much money out of that deal though.

At 10/2/11 10:40 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: economists were saying it would have been cheaper to pay off all the mortgages given to all those people than it was to bail out the bank. would have solved a few more problems too. alas the bank wouldn't get as much money out of that deal though.

'Twere it have been that the mortgages were even a majority of the problems...

Too bad there would still have been billions of dollars out of US retirement funds that would have evaporated.

Wow I really didn't realise just HOW stupid these gys are.

So what SHOULD they be protesting, if it all?

At 10/3/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wow I really didn't realise just HOW stupid these gys are.

You mean one guy? The single guy who posted that list?

At 10/2/11 09:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

No doubting of the concerns here. Only doubting of their rudimentary economic knowledge.

For instance it's easy to protest the bailout when you don't realize that it was your savings that was actually bailed out.

Actualy all savings, in Ireland at any rate, are gauranteed when a bank goes bankrupt upto about 100,000 euro. Asuch it was more the wiping of millions of unpaid debts (and thus having to "give" away houses by clearing mortgages) that concerned the market. Wealthy people keep their money well spread, the poor have more debt than money. But since the debt remains intact this essentialy means you're anchored with 2 debts of the same(Though the State owned one is increasing indefinitely) value owed to 2 different bodies when you only initialy agreed to the first debt.

The only people the bailout did in fact help were those whose source of revenue was the banking system. As sensationalist as websites like http://www.usdebtclock.org/ are they do show the mounting debt in relation to the average citizen and the figures involved are insane. How we can consider that high a rate of fiat currency to debt viable is beyond me.

At 10/3/11 05:25 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Actualy all savings, in Ireland at any rate, are gauranteed when a bank goes bankrupt upto about 100,000 euro.

I don't mean to sound crass, but the bailout wasn't in Ireland. In teh US, the FDIC only insures Bank held accounts up to $100,000 (approx 67,000EU). IRAs, 401Ks, Stocks, Bonds, Debentures, private CDs, and other forms of saving are wholly losable.

The only people the bailout did in fact help were those whose source of revenue was the banking system. As sensationalist as websites like http://www.usdebtclock.org/ are they do show the mounting debt in relation to the average citizen and the figures involved are insane. How we can consider that high a rate of fiat currency to debt viable is beyond me.

I am not defending the debt, because the bailouts were paid back (with some sexy level of interest I might add). What I am merely pointing out is that Joe Q. American doesn't know enough about the basics of our financial system (I charge them to define just 2 of the terms I listed about without the Net to help) to really understand what's going on. Let alone do they know enough of the complexities (institutional investors, swaps, hedges, insurance, derivatives) to make simple judgments. Foexample, when AIG lost tens of billions by insuring GM to the tune of over 1000% the institutional investors who were investing derivatives of our IRAs, 401Ks and so one stood to lose that money. As that money was actually a combo of millions of regular Joes' accounts, the Joes stood to lose substantially.

When it comes to career Bonaroo protestors, I seriously doubt that they took or passed high school economics, let alone the securities classes necessary to understand what Wall Street is all about.

At 10/3/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wow I really didn't realise just HOW stupid these gys are.

apparently they're coming to Canada even though we're more in line with their demands than the US.

get ready for a more polite lack of interest.

At 10/3/11 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: apparently they're coming to Canada even though we're more in line with their demands than the US.

Sounds liek pretty strong evidence that the protesters truly don't know what they're protesting about, and instead are protesting because it's hip amongst their crowd to protest.

get ready for a more polite lack of interest.

Protestor: "We regret to say that we don't agree with Wall Street!"

General Canadian public: "Thank you for your input, but no thanks."

At 10/3/11 01:19 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: So what SHOULD they be protesting, if it all?

The main theme of this protest (aka, the issue that this was based on when it was organized) is corporations being able to both:

1. get away with the financial mismanagement that we would never be able to get away with. (at our expense)

2. "donate" money to political parties. (aka, legalized bribery) think that's fine? Then why is it that the same company may just so happen to be investing money into BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans?

They really should protest on K Street in D.C. because thats where the lobbyists are located. Why aren't they there though puzzels me.

I'm sure that the Wall Street protests are not spontaneous. There are political interests behind them. People, inside and outside the country, who seek to end any and all form of stability in the USA.

I hope Obama can somehow solve this soon. There is more than just money at stake. Its a feeling I have... disregard this post if you will.

At 10/3/11 09:41 PM, ToddM wrote: They really should protest on K Street in D.C. because thats where the lobbyists are located. Why aren't they there though puzzels me.

Because the people in the protests are stupid and don't really understand who their anger should be directed at.