Occupy Wall Street movement

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

portucheese

next random

Comment

Occupy Wall Street movement. .. I live near Denver Colorado. Our Occupy Wall Street protesters had issues with homeless people stealing their food and , and they ended up beating up several ho

+1497

Views: 58533 Submitted: 07/05/2013

Block User's Content

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (207)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 207 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#1 - tiredofannon

Reply+210

(07/06/2013)[-]

I live near Denver Colorado. Our Occupy Wall Street protesters had issues with homeless people stealing their food and ****, and they ended up beating up several homeless people who tried stealing some cupcakes or ****. Furthermore, they demanded police protection from theft.

#21 to #1 - emrakul

Reply+15

(07/06/2013)[-]

Also yesterday they screwed up the Restore the Fourth rally by screaming at police.

#89 to #21 - zombielovez

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

i see your Emrakul and i'll raise you a dissipate

#154 to #89 - cookingfragsyum

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Hmm, I wonder what "Can't be countered" means...

#155 to #154 - zombielovez

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

haven't read the card in awhile, meh golems could handle it.

#157 to #155 - cookingfragsyum

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

With enough of em', I guess

#158 to #157 - zombielovez

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

my golem deck functions like slivers... by the time someone has dropped a 15 mana cost creature i have at least 7 5/5 flying first strike trample mofos

#164 to #158 - cookingfragsyum

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

What golem staples do you use? Is it casual or modern/eternal?

#162 to #158 - cookingfragsyum

has deleted their comment [-]

#79 to #1 - witislimited

Reply+3

(07/06/2013)[-]

The irony- it's so bittersweet.

#183 to #1 - imofcnotharveydent

Reply-4

(07/06/2013)[-]

**** this, you tell the cops, you join us, you run from us, but may god have mercy for we will not as the pieces fall

#9 - necroshiz**User deleted account**

+144

has deleted their comment [-]

#12 - infinitereaper

Reply+78

(07/06/2013)[-]

The problem isn't wealth it's wealth gained by becoming a parasite sucking the world economy and middle and lower class dry.

#24 to #12 - tazze

Reply+6

(07/06/2013)[-]

the problem with economy is having large amounts of money (big fortunes) in banks, ALL money has to flow, in an ideal capitalist system everyone would earn money at the same rate they spend it and not a single cent would be left out of circulation

#26 to #24 - manicekman

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

And you think the money stays in bank? Banks lend the money so people build **** and buy ****.

#27 to #26 - tazze

Reply+8

(07/06/2013)[-]

MFW people think banks lend remotely enough money to keep the economy working

#50 to #27 - pennydragon

Reply+5

(07/06/2013)[-]

As always it depends on what is actually done.

But banks are usually a major money multiplier, which you should know if you've taken second year finance. If you're a lot more advanced than that and you disagree please show us your reasoning.

The way it works is this. People put excess money that they haven't yet spent or invested long term into a bank. That then bank loans it out. Those that borrow the money usually don't spend it all at once, they spend it gradually on their building project or whatever as they buy more supplies, pay wages, and rent equipment. So a lot of that money returns to a bank, and the bank loans it out. This happens so much that the banks are basically stretching money.

This is why if many many people were to pull their money out of a bank, that bank would not possibly be able to pay them. Only a tiny percentage of the total money they bank actually is in the bank at any one time.

Your complaint with banks that money must be in circulation isn't how it usually works. I'd be more concerned with bank fraud. I'd be more concerned with other corporations sitting on their money, cutting jobs, exploiting oppressed global labor and monetary exchange rates. I'd be concerned with war spending that destroys lives, spending that isn't a good investment.

#103 to #50 - tazze

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

look, for example, before the crisis the banks would lend anyone any amount of money, that made the system work pretty well, but it also made it unstable because people spent more money that what they earned, that caused many of them (banks) to crash, and after that they are very suspicious of everything and thus don't lend enough money, which is suffocating the economy, everyone is focused on saving money and that, in this system, is a terrible thing.

#116 to #103 - pennydragon

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Leading up to the crisis there was a lot of terrible behavior in finance, that's what kind of caused the crash. Bad loans, bad math, fraud, gambling on derivatives, wasting investor money, selling people on shady variable interest loans for way more than they should have had. It was all geared towards getting money from the housing bubble and the great supposedly rock solid interest they could make from the US housing market. Also student loans are a bit of a mess right now with how terrible the job market is.

As for financing and credit no longer being as available, yes that's true, and that's a fair critique. That wouldn't prove 'bad banks, no banking, you take money out of circulation' that would actually seem to say 'oh, we need more financing, loans and credit apparently'.

Yeah, you're right that austerity measures and cutting back are often a terrible thing during recessions. You're supposed to have austerity when times are GOOD to stock up for when times are bad. During a recession less spending and investment means less revenue in the market, which means more cutting back of production, which means less jobs, which means more suffering people. When people are hurting for work and money they tend to spend less so there's AGAIN less revenue in the markets, which means further cut backs of production. We want more money being invested now, but wisely, to pick things up and get back on track.

#66 to #27 - scootpilgrim

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

When they lend ten times more than they actually have, then yeah, I think they lend enough.

#34 to #27 - volleys

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

They usually invest money hopefully to make a profit. Otherwise all they would be doing is holding money. Thats the whole point of gaining interest on savings accounts/CD's. Banks are businesses they are supposed to make a profit.

#33 to #12 - jastri

Reply+3

(07/06/2013)[-]

I like this man

#182 to #33 - angelodlt

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Who is that?

#215 to #182 - jastri

Reply0

(07/08/2013)[-]

It's Andrew Ryan from the Bioshock games

#52 to #12 - superkewlguy

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

~~[I Hate Kumagawa]~~ [This is my favorite character!]

#132 to #12 - anisbanana

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

im so rich i **** carrots

#124 to #12 - anon id: 3ffa0638

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

If you make money by the manipulation of money and do nothing else, you're a parasite.

#22 to #12 - anon id: c2a5c32d

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

That second option sounds easy. I wanna do that.

#39 - betars

Reply+54

(07/06/2013)[-]

MFW dat shirt

>Misunderstanding Che Guervera's legacy as a hardworking patriot that would execute lazy-ass teenagers who refused to work, like him.

******* hipsters

#171 to #39 - anon id: 3e44dd65

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Hate me all you want but I actually like/respect a lot of things that the guy did. Albeit there are definitely some things I would do differently

#216 to #171 - anon id: eba9bbae

Reply0

(07/10/2013)[-]

The guys a murderer.

#93 to #39 - anon id: 475b8596

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

I like to think the point behind che guevera merchandise is that che was very anti-consumerism/capitalism of the west and now people sell him on t-shirts in spite of him, alas I think hipsters don't actually understand that and just go with the fad

#36 - augustusxxiv

Reply+42

(07/06/2013)[-]

There's a difference between closing the gap a bit between rich and poor and mindlessly giving to the parasites of society.

A man earning near minimum wage in order to sustain himself and/or his family is a proletariat who requires assistance. A youth who is homeless and has made a conscious decision not to work and is crippled by alcoholism and drugs is a parasite.

#65 to #36 - divinedrgn#113 on commentsRank#113

Reply+3

(07/06/2013)[-]

just so you know not all homeless choose to be homeless and with the way jobs are rightnow they would have a hell of a time getting one since companies tend to treat everybody as worthless little rats that they could replace at a whim. So basicly if you think about it in terms of a man who had a job and got laid off or fired who was unable to find another job due to the job market at the moment whom then would be unable to pay for a place to live he would then be considered homeless would he not???

I will thumb you up because I do agree that a lot of people do need help especially people in low income homes, but it is best not to judge a man from what he has or what he doesn't.

#184 to #36 - larknok

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

Consider the following.

#208 to #184 - augustusxxiv

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

The ruling class are indeed also parasitic to society, but in a different way from homeless youth. To put it in one sentence:

The ruling class push down the middle and working class, while the homeless youth pull them down.

#210 to #208 - larknok

Reply0

(07/07/2013)[-]

Can you really call something a parasite if it asks, doesn't take, and only sustains itself on gifted money/resources? Imagine a tape worm slides up next to you, and instead of sneaking inside, turned to you and asked politely: "hey man, could I live in your intestines and feed off of your scraps?" You can say no, and be on your way.

The issue of government handouts is entirely different. Handouts are a matter of democratic decision-making. If you don't like it (and are vocal about it), then you don't appreciate the democratic system. Democracy isn't about the individual winning all the time. Its about making sure the majority opinion becomes expressed. I encourage you to lobby against supplying handouts to the wealthy, but then again, the government might be bought out, and simply choose to give out handouts to distract the public from the billions corporate executives (who buy out the politicians) sneak out under from our noses.

#166 to #36 - CRosBY

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Do you honestly believe most of these people choose to be homeless?

#85 to #36 - anon id: 7b835bcc

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

I think we, in the first world bitch too much anyhow. Absolute poverty is eliminated here, and all we have is relative poverty, which is **** in comparison. Those living below the poverty line eat out 3 times a week. Those on food stamps have big screen TVs. Those who live in ramshackle housing have 4 walls, clean running water, and enough square footage for an entire Asian family all to themselves.

Seriously, the problem is more perspective than anything else.

#40 - MasterManiac

Reply+29

(07/06/2013)[-]

A lot of Wall Street bankers work very hard to be where they are today, by putting in thousands of hours to learn their industry and have complete dedication to what they do. A lot of bankers work between 12 to 16 hours a day for up to 6 days a week. Non stop. Most of them don't actually earn that much more per hour than their counterparts in alternate industries, but they just earn more due to this huge amount of work. Meanwhile some hipsters who are snapping photos and making "art" think they deserve to be paid the same for doing what most people regard more as a hobby rather than a job. Quite simply you get what you work for, or at least in my opinion.

#49 to #40 - rangerofthesea

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

#118 to #40 - thatoneiranianguy

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

As that may be I and I agree with you to an extent, but among those bankers at Wall Street, a lot of there are involved in some sort of international corruption.

#44 to #40 - godtherapist

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

It is about the inequality of the taxation and distribution of wealth. Not a direct attack on an individual basis.

#53 to #44 - MasterManiac

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Here in the UK the income tax hit 50% for the upper boundary (£150,000+ pa) and it basically pissed off a lot of people, and to be honest I kind of feel for them. Just because you earn more, you now have to pay a lot more tax. My problem is not with the bankers themselves, it's with the government spending a ******** of money on completely unneccesary and idiotic things rather than helping the underpriveledged.

#72 to #53 - KazumaKyu

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

No, don't increase the % tax for the upper boundary, but don't decrease it either. They should pay the exact same percentage that I do, and they should not be given these ridiculous tax cuts. Giving tax cuts to those who should logically be taking on a larger share of the burden (and can afford to do so) means that burden suddenly falls on me instead. Seeing as I'm not making money hand over fist like the ceo of some bank, that makes it extremely hard to go from day to day.

#42 to #40 - sanguinesolitude

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

consider the following. Most of Wall street is based on stock trading and currency trading, which basically involves trading control of imaginary bits of companies or money rapidly to maximize profit. Its basically high end gambling. Nothing is produced, nobody apart from the bankers involved are helped by it, its just using money to make more money.

Hipsters dont deserve to make more money. But its pretty messed up that just having money gives you the opportunity to make massive profits without actually producing anything of value.

A banker and a wall street banker tend to be very different things. Most bankers try to help their customers, wall street tries to create new and innovative ways to profit off consumers often at the cost of the economy and the well being of said consumers.

#47 to #42 - MasterManiac

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

True, but although you cannot physically touch what you have bought, you do own part of a company by buying shares, which you sell later to make a profit. Sort of how you might buy a digital version of a game, but then sell it on to another person. Of course this is a gross simplification of what actually happens, but it is the main principle behind it; buy cheap, sell for profit. Just saying.

#48 to #47 - sanguinesolitude

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

I have no problem with bankers. But what wall street does would be illegal in most western countries, or at the least heavily regulated.

Providing capital to businesses is a worthwhile pursuit of the banks, maximizing profit and inventing new strategies to use money to create money.

heck even the bible was against Usury, not that i'm a believer. an example is Ezekian 18:13 (he who) lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

#59 to #48 - MasterManiac

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Here I agree with you completely. The amount of money banks rob you of, because that is the only word that can be used, by simply giving out loans is despicable and quite honestly disgusts me. The amount of lives that have been ruined by loans that have already been paid, but with horrendous interest also attached, is just too much to count. There should be no money made from simply lending money.

#60 to #59 - sanguinesolitude

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

yep. well interest is ok. But selling shares in loans and using carried interest and all the other weird strategies they create just seems wrong.

#62 to #60 - MasterManiac

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

For me it's fine when dealing with stock, but when it comes to messing with other people's money and giving out loans, there certainly exists an ethical boundary that a lot of people seem to ignore.

#64 to #62 - sanguinesolitude

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

agreed

#91 to #40 - thamuz

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Yes. And most people who go into those jobs don't do it because they love it. They want it to get rich. Same goes for accountants. I have never met an accountant who actually loves their job.

So no,Wall Street doesn't get any respect or love from me. Especially when those bankers companies got so large that they couldn't stand up anymore.

#51 to #40 - Shiny

Reply-4

(07/06/2013)[-]

The janitor that cleans the bank's offices works hard, too. Where's his six figure salary?

#54 to #51 - MasterManiac

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

Of course, but he is doing a job anyone can do. How much time and money has he invested in becoming qualified for the job? Not much. Also how does a janitor bring in profit for the company? He doesn't. That's why he earns less. It may seem harsh, but you are valued by how indispensable you are to a company.

#55 to #54 - Shiny

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

So,what you're saying is, there's far more to success than sheer effort? Thank you for proving my point.

#57 to #55 - MasterManiac

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

Of course, the key to success is knowledge, not effort. I, for example, can put a lot of effort into something, but if it's still **** at the end I'm worth absolutely nothing more than what I was to begin with.

#58 to #57 - Shiny

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

And absolutely everyone has access to this kind of knowledge, and the opportunity to make use of it?

#61 to #58 - MasterManiac

Reply+3

(07/06/2013)[-]

I know that it is extremely tough for a lot of people to gain that knowledge, but I maintain my belief that where there's a will there's a way. Clearly the likes of poor Africans have basically no chance of a decent income, but if you are priveledged to be born in the US or UK then you shouldn't sulk about it - you should make use of the opportunities granted to you to earn a decent wage, and then you can help those who are poor. This is at least what I like to think I live by.

#67 to #61 - victorianfancyman

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

So what you're trying to say is that the Janitor wasted his life and is essentially replaceable cattle who should have 'known better'?

#70 to #67 - MasterManiac

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

There is far more to life than just your wages. Nonetheless, whether you like it or not, finding a new janitor to replace the old is not going to be hard.

#63 to #61 - Shiny

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Help the poor? The poor and middle class can't even help themselves. The strong employer's market makes getting, keeping and advancing in a job extremely difficult, if not outright impossible for many people; meanwhile, the cost of living keeps on rising and the middle class is expected to carry a disproportionately high amount of the tax burden.

Nobody cares that Wall Street bankers make a lot of money. They care that they get obscene tax cuts as a thank you for being "job creators".

#68 to #63 - KazumaKyu

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

This. I don't really give a **** that bankers and the like are making a lot of money, I'm just pissed that they aren't paying their fair share. Thing is, I also really don't care that they're creating jobs--I pay my taxes in full, so why the **** aren't they? A bank isn't a charity organization!

#83 to #68 - anon id: 7b835bcc

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

This.

#73 to #63 - MasterManiac

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

I'll be honest, I wasn't really aware that bankers got any kind of tax cuts compared to the normal population. I thought people were just annoyed that bankers were earning a lot more money, and getting huge bonuses, etc. In this resepct I agree with you - they should have no preferential treatment with respect to income tax payments compared to anyone else. It is a business, not a charity.

#75 to #40 - thelamalord

Reply-6

(07/06/2013)[-]

#29 - maidenfan

Reply+27

(07/06/2013)[-]

#46 to #29 - ehvh

Reply+8

(07/06/2013)[-]

Then is used either as a time marker or with a sequence of events. THAN is used in comparative statements. It's not that difficult.

#131 to #46 - revanthewin

Reply+3

(07/06/2013)[-]

#212 to #131 - maidenfan

Reply-1

(07/07/2013)[-]

It would appear that the problem is serious. The lack of grammatical correctness in this unimportant meme is causing you both to have rage- related seizures.

#213 to #212 - revanthewin

Reply+1

(07/07/2013)[-]

No joke, this is serious ******* business.

#214 to #213 - maidenfan

Reply0

(07/07/2013)[-]

Well then i apologize.

#10 - justatest

Reply+19

(07/06/2013)[-]

#16 to #10 - anon id: 9f2fbba0

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

It's funny when most of the people see this, they are saying that it's bad, the CEOs win to much monney while we're still at 1500$/month.

That's not how I react. What I tell to myself, is that I want to be the CEO. That's how you suppose to react. And maybe you're not gonna succed, but at least you would have tried and maybe got a raise while doing so ...

It's like the crab mentality.

#25 to #16 - vytros

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

But that's a false idol.

It's the same thing as saying I'm gonna be the next Steven Spielberg. It makes a false hope for you, so you can feel better about yourself when you possibly ruin someone else's life, or worse, ruin your own life by doing **** that you don't agree with or licking so much boss booty for a raise that you drive yourself insane. "But I might be the CEO someday." **** that. CEOs are closed little circle of asshats. And even as a CEO you can get ********** by your own company, even if you're a cool guy, because you will get ********** if you are a cool guy.

But that's my opinion at least. The promise of limitless riches is just an illusion. A content life with some luxury is a good life.

#31 to #25 - anon id: 9f2fbba0

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Well, I'd rather have this than stay at minimum wage. But then again that's my own modest opinion.

#110 to #16 - justatest

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

income of 1% is insane... you can`t spend that sum of money in your life time no way... its like hording.... i have nothing against CEO`s but 1% it`s insane... most are in the banking sector that does nothing but screw you ower, and i hate to burst your bubble but you will never ever belong in the 1% bracket, by the way i`m not in USA so i have no running horse in this race

#188 to #110 - anon id: 0a417822

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

When these guys keep their money in the bank it drives down interest rates and makes banks more likely to give loans and it makes it easier to get a loan for a house, car, etc/

#23 to #16 - anon id: c2a5c32d

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

And when you don't become that fabled CEO?

What then?

#32 to #23 - anon id: 9f2fbba0

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

**** bitches.

#136 - I Am Monkey

Reply+18

(07/06/2013)[-]

I go to an incredibly liberal college in New York that's obsessed with Occupy Wallstreet and not a single one of them would even acknowledge the homeless on our subway platform. They're all massive hypocrites. When they say "spread the wealth" they really mean "someone pay for my student loans".

#180 to #136 - larknok

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

I don't see an inherent problem with a sort of partially good philosophy. Yes, hypocrisy is always to some extent reprehensible. But let's imagine that you've got two choices of drug addicts: drug addicts who tell others not to use drugs, or drug addicts that tell others to use drugs. The first is a hypocrite, while the second is not. But who would you rather have in your neighborhood?

People have been excusing other people from having opinions for a very long time solely on the fallback that "they are only thinking of themselves." If a man pushes politically for the ability to feed thousands of starving children, but profits from it in a way, who cares? Good on the larger scale is not canceled by personal failure or shortcomings, and if it was, we'd all be damned.

Pyschoanalysis, at least when it boils down to someone really trying to talk to you about something serious, is a terrible, terrible thing. (Commonly this might be referred to as an ad-hominem logical fallacy) -> a person's own shortcomings does not invalidate their arguments.

#194 to #180 - comradewinter

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Lead by example. I don't listen to anything a blatantly obvious hypocrite says unless it's something very clear. When a supporter of something is not willing to sacrifice their wealth, why should I? It's like telling someone to convert to Christianity while being a Jew because "it's more likely that Judaism is the true religion".

#141 to #136 - anon id: de3b92bb

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Those aren't liberals. They're dumb asses.

I live in the South, their are plenty of Republicans who do the same thing down here. Stop giving labels to a party for the hypocrisy of a few.

#139 to #136 - anon id: 91eb8bfe

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

These liberals are not liberals; they're statist social democrats
Real liberals would be more along the lines of libertarians but the term has been so bastardized that libertarians would be outrageously insulted if you called them liberal.

#19 - freddyhollensen

Reply+11

(07/06/2013)[-]

This is obviously how socialism works, well done OP.

Seriously, people who vote for more inequality when there's people in your country who got 700x ******* more than you do.

Equality is not a bad thing, the essence of it should be that everyone is born with a chance in life, doesn't matter if you're born in wealth or poverty, you'll always have access to proper healthcare, education and financial support if needs be.

Do you guys think a socialist state just takes 100 bucks from the CEO and puts it straight into the account of some hobo? Seriously people.

Inb4 this is a joke, no, it's not, this is how many people view the situation, I know because I ask what people actually think about.

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 207 comments ]

Add Comment