Worldwide Occupy Movement?

davoxx

BluntGuy wrote: »

Personally I prefer specifics that we can nail down in order to debate constructively.

me too, but this is not the thread on "how does occupy plan on fixing individual issues in each country if they were elected to power".

i answered as i thought it might lead to somewhere other down a path of debating specifics in resolution of the worlds problems, and particularly ireland.

like i said before, make a new thread and i'll join you there, but i'm not going to get dragged into specific points especially about ireland in a thread about the gloabl occupy movement ...

davoxx

godge, you've been avoiding the whole condoning of violence by occupy.

i provided a link showing that they do not condone violence.
everything i mentioned that in a post you ignore it.

are you withdrawing your false claim that they condone violence?

just a yes or no answer ...

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

i did already.

I missed it so no harm in repeating it, is there? Look forward to reading it.

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

godge, you've been avoiding the whole condoning of violence by occupy.

i provided a link showing that they do not condone violence.
everything i mentioned that in a post you ignore it.

are you withdrawing your false claim that they condone violence?

just a yes or no answer ...

I have seen no evidence that Occupy deal with the miscreants in their midst.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

I have seen no evidence that Occupy deal with the miscreants in their midst.

i see no evidence of you withdrawing your statement that occupy condones violence ...

Inclusion

20Cent wrote: »

Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

Was called the world against apartheid check it out!

LOL , Occupy Galway already have super inflated egos , but comparing their camp and members to the anti-apartheid movement is just hilarious..!

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

ahh you mean greed ...

That's a very pejorative term.

Is there a particular reason you're trying hard to alienate people on behalf of the Occupy movement?

Agreed. It's interesting that occupy members are the first to turn around and cry foul the use of words like 'hippy' to describe themselves, but are perfectly happy to describe successful people with terms like 'greedy'


It makes me wonder, based on their further justification of 'civil disobedience', how long it will be before groups like this are justifying going to the homes of 'greedy' 'rich' people and forcibly redistributing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

me too, but this is not the thread on "how does occupy plan on fixing individual issues in each country if they were elected to power".

i answered as i thought it might lead to somewhere other down a path of debating specifics in resolution of the worlds problems, and particularly ireland.

like i said before, make a new thread and i'll join you there, but i'm not going to get dragged into specific points especially about ireland in a thread about the gloabl occupy movement ...

My apologies to davoxx's dancing partners here, but davoxx's persistent refusal to "debate specifics" long since passed the point of trolling. The last several pages of this thread are a trainwreck.

3 day ban for the brick wall - the rest of you should rest your heads...

moderately,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Permabear beag,is probably offering the most succinct reason why 20Cent's and others Occupy logic is doomed....repeat for effect,DOOMED (a lá Dad's Army) to failure.

We are Human beings,with millenia of Humanity all stored in our internal servers.

Much of the material allows for strange or abberant behavioural patterns,but those are countered by the other stuff which allows for compensatory beneficial deeds and thoughts.

Humanity is little more or less than a genetic balancing act,which we all can only hope remains in equilibrium during our lifetimes.

Occassionally,and more often than we like to admit,that Humanity Balance tips,and we find ourselves enmeshed in the blacker side of the entire Human existance.

The leap of faith being required by the Occupy movement appears to centre around the greater bulk of Humanity being asked to demonize Wealthy,or Weathier people simply because they have more than we have.

Life's not like that.

Inclusion

Why are OG restricting online communication from people who wish to debate their philosophies and idealogies?

Their website and fb page have banned and blocked people who have asked legitimate questions and raised valid points about their motives - how can they justify this and surely not recognise that it is not encouraging free and open society?

Corkblowin

davoxx wrote: »

anyone can repeat what they were told, but in looking for it, we create out own answers.

I assume he meant 'our' here, and so troll or not - he stumbled across the reason that neither I, nor 99% (ironic percentage!) of the people I know, can take occupy seriously. In short they seem to make a lot of s*it up.

Trying to have a discussion with people who refute statistics, facts and figures with comments about us not knowing where to look for the 'real' information is bad enough. However they then pop up with 'facts' such as the government is pumping billions into American companies enriching them at the citizens expense without any backup save to say I'm one of the sheeple if I don't believe it (this was a serious argument I was presented with). When the same people also come out with crap such as the twin towers was a CIA plot, that the US are placing bombers onto planes so as to have an excuse to restrict our freedoms and that governments are only a front for the super rich elite then it's time to back away slowly & never return!

Inclusion

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

FreudianSlippers

Inclusion wrote: »

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

In fairness to biko, s/he (I am almost positive he, but cannot remember :P) did flag that user to the Admins and they were unable to find a match. That's all the mod can really do in that regard.
I do believe that that thread was heavily biased towards the Occupy Galway movement but biko did act fairly in bringing that complaint to Admin attention.

K-9

Inclusion wrote: »

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

Mod

Discussion of Mod decisions is against the charter. That Mod doesn't even Mod Politics. If you've a problem take it up on Helpdesk or the DRP.

hatrickpatrick

AlekSmart wrote: »

And Permabear beag,is probably offering the most succinct reason why 20Cent's and others Occupy logic is doomed....repeat for effect,DOOMED (a lá Dad's Army) to failure.

We are Human beings,with millenia of Humanity all stored in our internal servers.

Much of the material allows for strange or abberant behavioural patterns,but those are countered by the other stuff which allows for compensatory beneficial deeds and thoughts.

Humanity is little more or less than a genetic balancing act,which we all can only hope remains in equilibrium during our lifetimes.

Occassionally,and more often than we like to admit,that Humanity Balance tips,and we find ourselves enmeshed in the blacker side of the entire Human existance.

The leap of faith being required by the Occupy movement appears to centre around the greater bulk of Humanity being asked to demonize Wealthy,or Weathier people simply because they have more than we have.

Life's not like that.

For the bajillionth time, that's not what it's about.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with being wealthy if you earned it, and earned it honestly. Nobody is claiming this.
Do you regard those in charge of the financial system which has, through entirely artificial means, plunged our society into complete and utter havoc as being justified in running away with the money they should be using the pay back the absolutely gigantic sums they have effectively stolen directly from the pockets of the rest of us?

Why is the word "loan" not being used with regard to bailouts, anyway?
I'd be far less angry about Anglo if the bailout terms were "We'll bail you out, but you damn well use every cent of profit you make from now on to pay us back, before you give yourselves even one more 'bonus'".

There's a difference between genuine wealth, and the proceeds of dishonesty and corruption. It is the latter we are asking people to demonize.

FreudianSlippers

What does it mean to "earn it"? Are we just saying allowing banks to profit at all is inherently evil?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For the bajillionth time, that's not what it's about.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with being wealthy if you earned it, and earned it honestly. Nobody is claiming this.
Do you regard those in charge of the financial system which has, through entirely artificial means, plunged our society into complete and utter havoc as being justified in running away with the money they should be using the pay back the absolutely gigantic sums they have effectively stolen directly from the pockets of the rest of us?

Why is the word "loan" not being used with regard to bailouts, anyway?
I'd be far less angry about Anglo if the bailout terms were "We'll bail you out, but you damn well use every cent of profit you make from now on to pay us back, before you give yourselves even one more 'bonus'".

There's a difference between genuine wealth, and the proceeds of dishonesty and corruption. It is the latter we are asking people to demonize.

Reading that piece in bold, I am drawn to the conclusion that your views are that:

(1) Bankers who genuinely and legally earned bonuses under the terms of their contracts should be paid those bonuses;
(2) Bondholders who made a decision to invest in Ireland and purchase bonds that were guaranteed by the FF government should be repaid what they are owed as they have legally earned that return;

Or is there a difference in your mind between legally and honestly and how can you tell the difference and who decides if you are correct?

Corkblowin

I see a comment on the occupy Galway FB page from the London occupiers that money raised has gone missing - but it's claimed this was done by manipulators & outside interests...............right. :rolleyes:

Interesting as this was one of the issues raised about Galway previously.

As an aside, hatpatrick : while I fundamentally disagree with you on pretty much all youve posted (although you do have a point about the disconnect between the people and the parliament) I do admire the fact that you have stayed with all the threads & fought your corner tenaciously and without much rancour - unlike most of the others than ran away and now only post in places where they won't get any dissenting voices. Kudos.

They're about to talk about ODS on Adrian Kennedy. Will probably be hilarious

http://www.fm104.ie/boxtube/

I was going to post quotes of what the representative is saying (live from ODS) but I'll sum it up by saying the words ignorant, arrogant, and asshole.

Cringeworthy! They'll be there for "as long as possible." As for the businesses who are being negatively affected, "Sure this was never a shopping hub...we're in a global recession."

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does it mean to "earn it"? Are we just saying allowing banks to profit at all is inherently evil?

If they're surviving on taxpayer bailouts? YES!
They should be paying us back before they pay their managers an extra cent on top of their salaries. I have heard no talk whatsoever of our Anglo bailout being a loan. They should be required to pay us back with interest, seeing as that's the business model they operate on when they give other people money.
We are effectively GIVING them money to pay for their f*ck ups without any expectation that they repay it. It's lunacy.

Once you're owned by the state, making a profit should not be your priority, repaying the taxpayer should be. They shouldn't have been given our money in the first place, they'd damn well better focus on paying us back rather than paying themselves.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Reading that piece in bold, I am drawn to the conclusion that your views are that:

(1) Bankers who genuinely and legally earned bonuses under the terms of their contracts should be paid those bonuses;
(2) Bondholders who made a decision to invest in Ireland and purchase bonds that were guaranteed by the FF government should be repaid what they are owed as they have legally earned that return;

Or is there a difference in your mind between legally and honestly and how can you tell the difference and who decides if you are correct?

1) Bankers who directly presided over the policies which led to the collapse we're in should have been sacked for incompetence a long time ago.

2) Bondholders should never have been guaranteed in the first place and that decision should be revoked and investigated. I do not believe it was taken for honest reasons, nor was it made through honest means. the constitution states that the cabinet is the ultimate decision making body in government, yet the cabinet were barely consulted except for a phone call at 4 o clock in the morning.

With regard to #1, we now own those banks. The taxpayer. We own them, therefore we do in fact have the power to investigate and get rid of the incompetent buffoons who led us to where we are today, and we do have the power to restructure them without the insane pay levels they have now.
Once you have been nationalized, your priority should be to pay back the taxpayer first and foremost. Profits are for successful businesses.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1) Bankers who directly presided over the policies which led to the collapse we're in should have been sacked for incompetence a long time ago.

2) Bondholders should never have been guaranteed in the first place and that decision should be revoked and investigated. I do not believe it was taken for honest reasons, nor was it made through honest means. the constitution states that the cabinet is the ultimate decision making body in government, yet the cabinet were barely consulted except for a phone call at 4 o clock in the morning.

With regard to #1, we now own those banks. The taxpayer. We own them, therefore we do in fact have the power to investigate and get rid of the incompetent buffoons who led us to where we are today, and we do have the power to restructure them without the insane pay levels they have now.
Once you have been nationalized, your priority should be to pay back the taxpayer first and foremost. Profits are for successful businesses.

(1) You have no proof of incompetence of any individual banker below the top level who have already been replaced.
(2) You have no proof at all that the decision to guarantee the bondholders was anything other than a monumentally stupid idea dreamed up by McWilliams and badly implemented by Lenihan.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we're just giving them 80 odd billion with no expectation of it ever being repayed?
Therein lies the inherent lunacy in this whole situation. They never give money away for free, why should they be given it for free? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

hatrickpatrick

Corkblowin wrote: »

As an aside, hatpatrick : while I fundamentally disagree with you on pretty much all youve posted (although you do have a point about the disconnect between the people and the parliament) I do admire the fact that you have stayed with all the threads & fought your corner tenaciously and without much rancour - unlike most of the others than ran away and now only post in places where they won't get any dissenting voices. Kudos.

Cheers
Sure I'm an Irishman, isn't it a national characteristic that we enjoy debating? :P
My dad has an old Scrap Saturday tape and one of the running jokes on it is that when Haughey is having his New Year's Eve party, they hire Eamon Dunphy for the specific purpose of wandering around arguing with guests in five minute time slots

Joking aside for a moment, could I ask what you fundamentally disagree with about what I've posted?
You suggest that you DO recognize the disconnect between parliament and people, so is your disagreement with the reforms I've proposed to deal with them, with my assertion that a more accountable system is in fact desirable, or on a totally different aspect of my argument such as reforming the monetary / financial system and refusing to accept cronyism / bailouts for buddies / etc?

I'm genuinely curious about the arguments of those who oppose such restructuring, is it due to fear of the unknown, a disagreement that the situation we have now is as bad as protesters argue it is, or a resignation that while it's bad, it's impossible for us to come up with a better system and we should just learn to live with it, broken as it is?

I think one of the areas we lock horns is that sometimes we're on different pages with regard to scale. While it seems many opponents of such a revolution / reform argue on the smaller scale of the negative effect it will have on existing institutions and systems, my argument is that the scope of reform must be so large that those very systems and institutions themselves are also replaced. I'm not sure if I've made that point clearly enough in the past. To reference the collapsing edifice argument put forward earlier in the topic, my position is that instead of propping up a dangerous structure, often a council or government will decide that if the building is fundamentally unsound to its core, it should be demolished entirely in the interest of public safety. I wrote a more detailed argument about this several weeks ago in response to an earlier post, but my browser crashed during writing it, I didn't have the energy to type it all out again but I will revisit it in a day or two, have the beginnings of redrafting the post on my HD now, and I refuse to type long responses inside a browser window anymore

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So we're just giving them 80 odd billion with no expectation of it ever being repayed?
Therein lies the inherent lunacy in this whole situation. They never give money away for free, why should they be given it for free? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You do realise that many businesses rely on bank overdrafts for basic working capital. Given the recession I'd imagine many businesses rely heavily on this to stay afloat. Given that many of them give out about a lack of credit facilities from banks, if there was no banks, there would be no credit facilities for companies. That would mean even more job losses as many viable businesses would go to the wall. The banks weren't saved for the hell of it. Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system(Ours is still on life support). That's the reason the industry as a whole was bailed out. Its a different and ultimatley completely academic debate if the way it was done was the right way.

On the subject of Occupy they don't seem to care about the local businesses in the area. The group had more than enough time to make their point what ever that is.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realise that many businesses rely on bank overdrafts for basic working capital.

You do realise that when you have an overdraft, you eventually have to repay it, right? Doesn't justify giving banks an indefinite payment instead of a long term loan.

Given the recession I'd imagine many businesses rely heavily on this to stay afloat.

It's been stated time and again that the bailouts haven't eased the credit crunch all that much. How about attaching a condition to bank bailouts that the funds must be used to actually provide customers with credit?

Given that many of them give out about a lack of credit facilities from banks, if there was no banks, there would be no credit facilities for companies.

As I've stated many times already, this is what needs to be changed. The system must be redesigned so that funding for business does not rely on private companies being perpetually successful, to the point that when they f*ck up we have to bail them out. If banks are fundamentally necessary to our economy, then they should be public companies whose sole purpose is to facilitate money distribution, and not profit making entities.

That would mean even more job losses as many viable businesses would go to the wall. The banks weren't saved for the hell of it. Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system(Ours is still on life support). That's the reason the industry as a whole was bailed out. Its a different and ultimatley completely academic debate if the way it was done was the right way.

Anglo was not ans is not functioning, it should not have been saved no matter what extenuating circumstances existed as a pretext for saving AIB and BOI.

Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system

Why? Why does it have to exist in the form that it does, why can't we redesign it exactly? Why are you so adamant that we have to keep shorin up a collapsing building instead of demolishing it and building a new one in its place?

On the subject of Occupy they don't seem to care about the local businesses in the area. The group had more than enough time to make their point what ever that is.

It's not about making a point, it's about changing things.
The general idea of a protest is to fight on until change is achieved. Would you have said to the Irish independence fighters half way through the war "Sure you've made your point, go home now you're just being a nuisance"?

Would you have said that to Martin Luther after the million man march? "You've made your point, nothing has changed but you've made your point so go home"?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You do realise that when you have an overdraft, you eventually have to repay it, right? Doesn't justify giving banks an indefinite payment instead of a long term loan.

You do understanding I was referring to one of the functions of banks not how they were bailed out. This was a reason they were bailed out. The aim of the government is that the banks be ultimately self supporting and leave government ownership.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's been stated time and again that the bailouts haven't eased the credit crunch all that much. How about attaching a condition to bank bailouts that the funds must be used to actually provide customers with credit?

Question what do you think would happen if there was no banks? Business are recieving credit not as much as they would like or need but many of them still have access. If there was no banks none of them bar the foreign owned(Which weren't bailed out by the Irish Taxpayer) and they would probably face even further tightening due to a bigger collapse of the economy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've stated many times already, this is what needs to be changed. The system must be redesigned so that funding for business does not rely on private companies being perpetually successful, to the point that when they f*ck up we have to bail them out. If banks are fundamentally necessary to our economy, then they should be public companies whose sole purpose is to facilitate money distribution, and not profit making entities.

How would you go about changing it. Do you have anything approaching a taught out plan that you could show other people for them to citique.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Anglo was not ans is not functioning, it should not have been saved no matter what extenuating circumstances existed as a pretext for saving AIB and BOI.

Thats a purely academic arguement (One for academics to investigate)I don't thing anyone would argue the banks were dealt in the best way but unfortunately we don't have a time machine. The government going forward can't change the past. They need to make the best of what they've got.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why? Why does it have to exist in the form that it does, why can't we redesign it exactly? Why are you so adamant that we have to keep shorin up a collapsing building instead of demolishing it and building a new one in its place?

Because no one has put further a better suggestion. The most prosperous countries in the world use various froms of state managed capatilism.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about making a point, it's about changing things.
The general idea of a protest is to fight on until change is achieved. Would you have said to the Irish independence fighters half way through the war "Sure you've made your point, go home now you're just being a nuisance"?

Would you have said that to Martin Luther after the million man march? "You've made your point, nothing has changed but you've made your point so go home"?

You can't change anything unless you put further an alternative/solution and as some other proponents of Occupy have said it doesn't do solutions. The people you mention were working towards clearly defined goals. Occupy only protests it doesn't seem to have any other purpose. Its protested, now its time to go home or actually start doing something constructive. Which can be done without destroying other people livelyhoods.