Banks Helped FBI to Crush Occupy: New Doc Trove

[Type Username Here]

You're side-stepping the point of what I'm writing here.

With the Civil Rights Movement, the voting rights drives are completely separate from whatever results did and did not come from voting. The very act of them attempting to create voting blocs was an outside in thing, not done through the vote.

And formulating that response to my rebuttal in the way that you did, that it was a "voting populace," that a man in society votes and that man is a "voting man" the way that short-sighted economists formulate man as "economic man," is reductive. They were changes done without the need for a vote, the vote itself reinforces the right to ensure those changes, along with the right to power within and outside of the law as they see fit. It doesn't change anything.

You're formulating voting as eschatological, the end point to which decision-making in an organized society, with a binary being created with the extrasocietal violent revolution, as if society simply trends toward these two states of being. When you look at the vote as a simple tool of a certain type of society and nothing more, you see it not being used until power needs to be ensured and extended, not when decisions about the organization of society are being made and formulated. That's all I showed.

You're saying that the voting only builds or affirms upon progress made by other means?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

You're saying that the voting only builds or affirms upon progress made by other means?

I believe so. I think more than that, he's saying that a vote cements the powered enforcement of a societal change, or how the government will respond to that change. I agree with that to an extent, and what he's saying (that voting does not singularly CAUSE societal change). Part and parcel of the issue is that we cannot be assured that our vote will result in the representative taking the desired action on said issue/structure with any immediate surety. There is a measure of implicit faith in a vote, that may not pan out into reality. However, I think he may be underestimating the power of voting as a form of political gradualism if you will. You may not be able to achieve one-fell-swoop type changes through voting, but i do believe that with enough backing, and support that lasts long enough, it is possible to see voting result in progressive changes in how governmental structures do work. Obviously it depends on what percentage of the general will takes a certain position and how proactive they are about it.

I do agree that the vast majority of societal change is made outside of the democratic process. I could even see you arguing that cultural pressure from society in democracies causes politicians to endorse that change maybe even more than a vote. Essentially politicians want to keep their jobs, and our votes for them are like an HR yearly review. To be frank, keeping their job matters just as much to them as their values do (no surprise)

 

[OsO]

Not this:

Occupy Wall Street - Champagne Toast - YouTube

It's going to take other means. Some of you won't be built for that life.

i think occupy was a good start. it unified people for a common cause (economic equality) and it got closer to publicly identifying some of the real villains in this society (financial elitists).

i only wish the strategy of the OWS movement included creating sustainable economic networks amongst OWS participants. if every single member of OWS made a commitment to consolidate their consumer purchasing power, ideally amongst businesses owned by other members of OWS, then we would have seen a much different outcome.

but i have a feeling that will come with OWS 2.0.

 

[Type Username Here]

i think occupy was a good start. it unified people for a common cause (economic equality) and it got closer to publicly identifying some of the real villains in this society (financial elitists).

i only wish the strategy of the OWS movement included creating sustainable economic networks amongst OWS participants. if every single member of OWS made a commitment to consolidate their consumer purchasing power, ideally amongst businesses owned by other members of OWS, then we would have seen a much different outcome.

but i have a feeling that will come with OWS 2.0.

Those people in the balcony are laughing breh.

Straight up laughing and sippin champagne.

Just looking at those people with their iphones, ipads, name brand clothing, starbucks coffee in hand.

Just laughing. Like they are laughing at us.

 

[OsO]

I believe so. I think more than that, he's saying that a vote cements the powered enforcement of a societal change, or how the government will respond to that change. I agree with that to an extent, and what he's saying (that voting does not singularly CAUSE societal change). Part and parcel of the issue is that we cannot be assured that our vote will result in the representative taking the desired action on said issue/structure with any immediate surety. There is a measure of implicit faith in a vote, that may not pan out into reality. However, I think he may be underestimating the power of voting as a form of political gradualism if you will. You may not be able to achieve one-fell-swoop type changes through voting, but i do believe that with enough backing, and support that lasts long enough, it is possible to see voting result in progressive changes in how governmental structures do work. Obviously it depends on what percentage of the general will takes a certain position and how proactive they are about it.

I do agree that the vast majority of societal change is made outside of the democratic process. I could even see you arguing that cultural pressure from society in democracies causes politicians to endorse that change maybe even more than a vote. Essentially politicians want to keep their jobs, and our votes for them are like an HR yearly review. To be frank, keeping their job matters just as much to them as their values do (no surprise)

voting doesnt mean shyt without holding politicians accountable.

the masses vote more according to whats happening in their reality, not the voting record of the politician in question, and that's if they even vote at all.

overall there is very little political strategizing amongst the public when it comes to intentionally directing their voting power.

 

[OsO]

Those people in the balcony are laughing breh.

Straight up laughing and sippin champagne.

Just looking at those people with their iphones, ipads, name brand clothing, starbucks coffee in hand.

Just laughing. Like they are laughing at us.

whats does what you wrote have to do with what i wrote?

 

[Type Username Here]

whats does what you wrote have to do with what i wrote?

The Occupy Movement was an utter failure. It only succeeded to make protesting harder.

The only positive that came out was finally having concrete proof that the Justice Department and the Obama Administration sanctioned a clampdown while working with banking institutions (thanks to the Freedom of Information Act). You won't hear that shyt mentioned on the news though, even though there is 100% proof.

It might to take some of this:

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for these people to learn. Let us hope it does not. It won't be pleasant for all parties involved.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I believe so. I think more than that, he's saying that a vote cements the powered enforcement of a societal change, or how the government will respond to that change. I agree with that to an extent, and what he's saying (that voting does not singularly CAUSE societal change). Part and parcel of the issue is that we cannot be assured that our vote will result in the representative taking the desired action on said issue/structure with any immediate surety. There is a measure of implicit faith in a vote, that may not pan out into reality. However, I think he may be underestimating the power of voting as a form of political gradualism if you will. You may not be able to achieve one-fell-swoop type changes through voting, but i do believe that with enough backing, and support that lasts long enough, it is possible to see voting result in progressive changes in how governmental structures do work. Obviously it depends on what percentage of the general will takes a certain position and how proactive they are about it.

I do agree that the vast majority of societal change is made outside of the democratic process. I could even see you arguing that cultural pressure from society in democracies causes politicians to endorse that change maybe even more than a vote. Essentially politicians want to keep their jobs, and our votes for them are like an HR yearly review. To be frank, keeping their job matters just as much to them as their values do (no surprise)

This, and also the reverse of this (The vote also ensures the right of the government to not only act within the law, but to act in exception to the law as they see fit within circumstance, which, as we've seen throughout the past 11 years or so, could mean anything).

I'd type more, but I've been out all day and the convo's moved to another topic, so I'll stop there.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

The Occupy Movement was an utter failure. It only succeeded to make protesting harder.

The only positive that came out was finally having concrete proof that the Justice Department and the Obama Administration sanctioned a clampdown while working with banking institutions (thanks to the Freedom of Information Act). You won't hear that shyt mentioned on the news though, even though there is 100% proof.

It might to take some of this:

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for these people to learn. Let us hope it does not. It won't be pleasant for all parties involved.

i recall that the famine in France was one of the causes for the French Revolution and that it may have been orchestrated by powers that wanted the French Monarchy to fall.

 

[Gus Money]

Obviously. If you don't have your money in a credit union, I don't even know what the fukk to tell you. I fukk with my university credit union and USAA Bank. USAA might as well be a damn credit union of sorts. They don't operate like these other banks, especially if you're a veteran.

Yeah my dad kept telling me to to open an account with a credit union but I didn't take him seriously until after I graduated. Once it came time to buy a car my bank tried to fukk me with the interest rates.

He's a veteran too (Marines) and he does everything through Navy Federal. In fact, I don't think any of my friends/family in the military keep their money in banks (other than USAA).

My mom was telling me this but I couldnt understand, just why are Credit Unions better then banks?

There are a few reasons. The article explains a lot. Some banks (usually the small/local ones) operate in ways similar to credit unions, but it may be harder to access your account without surcharges if you move or travel. The main argument people give me when saying why they stay with their bank instead of a credit union despite the issues/surcharges/getting nickel-and-dimed, has to do with availability/number of locations. Nowadays, many if not most, credit unions in the US are connected so you can access your account without charge at any credit union in the US that is a part of this network.

7 Ways Credit Unions Are Better Than Banks - My Money (usnews.com)

1. Making you a top priority. Unlike corporate banks, credit unions are working in the best interest of depositors, not stockholders. This is why most can offer much better customer service and will go out of their way to make you, the depositor, happy. They’re less focused on turning a profit and more focused on ensuring they’re providing depositors with a high level of service and competitive rates. They even have a nonprofit status so they’re exempt from many taxes.

Another article: Why Credit Unions Are a Better Financial Choice For Us Than Big Banks - DailyFinance

 

[Squirtle]

@Gus Money If everyone starts seeing that Credit Unions are better then banks, wont the big banks come up with a way to destroy them?

 

[Listen]

Obviously. If you don't have your money in a credit union, I don't even know what the fukk to tell you. I fukk with my university credit union and USAA Bank. USAA might as well be a damn credit union of sorts. They don't operate like these other banks, especially if you're a veteran.

Credit Union only since '98.

 

[Gus Money]

@Gus Money If everyone starts seeing that Credit Unions are better then banks, wont the big banks come up with a way to destroy them?

If more people begin using credit unions then banks will probably just change their policies and operate in a similar way that credit unions do.

 

[OsO]

The Occupy Movement was an utter failure. It only succeeded to make protesting harder.

The only positive that came out was finally having concrete proof that the Justice Department and the Obama Administration sanctioned a clampdown while working with banking institutions (thanks to the Freedom of Information Act). You won't hear that shyt mentioned on the news though, even though there is 100% proof.

It might to take some of this:

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for these people to learn. Let us hope it does not. It won't be pleasant for all parties involved.

i think youre taking it to the extreme.

was occupy successful at reforming the money machine? of course not.

but was it an "utter failure?" no, not even close.

occupy was in over 2000 cities across the world. occupy got the world to focus its attention on the actions of the banks/wall street/corps, which is a positive accomplishment in itself because how are you going to fight a economic "war" and not know who your enemy is?

and the other reason your statement is erroneous is because the movement isnt even over yet! occupy movements are still building in NY, BOS, PHILLY, DC, and those are just the ones i know of. there's a bunch of independent "occupy" cells all over the country doing their own thing. the occupy movement hasnt even completely concluded yet and it's an utter failure?

thats a bit harsh

edit: and we want to avoid the french revolution course at all costs.

you dont use a hammer for an ant.