Your video, Bloomberg gets a Special Comment - Countdown 11-15-2011, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

NYPD Occupying Liberty Square; Demands Unclear
Posted 19 hours ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 6:51 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

New York, NY — The NYPD have been occupying Liberty Square since 1:00am Tuesday morning, with the brand new occupation now set to enter its second day in just a few short hours. But will anyone listen to them when their message is so incoherent?

"What are their demands?" asked social historian Patrick Bruner. "They have not articulated any platform. How do they expect to be taken seriously?"

Critics of the new occupation allege that meddling billionaire Michael Bloomberg is behind the movement. Others question the new occupiers' militant posture, concerned about the potential effects on the neighborhood.

"I suppose they have a right to express themselves," said local resident Han Shan. "But I'd prefer it if instead they occupied the space with the power of their arguments."

occupywallst.org/article/nypd-occupying-liberty-square-demands-un
clear

Thanks, buddy.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*promote this amazing and more than necessary tirade.

>> ^brycewi19:

Holy crap! That was one of the best special comments I have heard from K.O.!
Every great hero needs an enemy to fight. Every great movement needs a symbol of their enemy to fight, too.


Agreed!

I linked these on the raw video of this, but I may as well add them to Thom's argument as well:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mike-bloombergs-marie-antoinette-moment-20111103

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html?sub=AR

*debunked

And I know all three of these were sparked by Michael Bloomberg, but here's three different awesome takedowns of the "government created the crisis" bullshit:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mike-bloombergs-marie-antoinette-moment-20111103

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html?sub=AR

Feel free to deploy any or all of them on anyone who ever says that to you.

Socially liberal? Bull...

Like most leftists, you probably approach this from the biased perception of your own political position. You occupy a much further 'left' position than I do, therefore your perception bais tells you that I am not 'left' because I am to the right of yourself. However, you must simply accept the reality that your position is much further left than the national average.

As a person with libertarian leanings, I have the socially liberal position that abortion is the choice of the individual - not the government. I also tend to agree that the war on drugs is not really government's proper role, but that the states should be allowed to legalize some drugs for medicinal purposes. Quite a few of my political positions are 'liberal' or 'centrist' because I come from a consistent position that it is not the government's role to limit the freedoms of citizens.

Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on

Well, first we don't know if they 'mis-reported'. That's an allegation. Regardless, since when has that ever stopped the media? Waiting for the 'facts' is not a habit of the news media in general and is in no way limited to either Fox & Friends, or this woman's story. I don't dispute that implies that the news media has no soul. But if we harp on it, then fairness demands equal harping on news outlet who discusses anything without the facts first. If we don't do that, but reserve our outrage only for cases for persons whom we ideologically sympathize with, then what does that say?

There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The OWS hippies have no 'terms' or 'complaints' or other specific 'demands' that they are willing to articulate. There are other videos and comments on the sift on how BRILLIANT OWS is because they refuse to have a leader, a position, a platform, or anything else that pins them down. Please tell me how anyone is supposed to have a meaningful dialog with a group that has no set of real complaints to address?

Regardless, the OWS movement is not the subject of a 'smear'. If anything, the bulk of the news media is engaged in massive cover-ups of thier daily crimes and abuses. There isn't a day that goes by now where there aren't reports of sexual abuse, rapes, theft, violence, arrests, property damage, and other violations of the law. Even Bloomberg - who has gone out of his way to slobber all over OWS - is starting to say they are going to have to take steps to deal with thier crimes and disruption. No one needs to smear OWS falsely. They do just fine smearing themselves.

Print it off for them:

--"Bank of America dumps 75 TRILLION in derivatives on U.S. Taxpayers with federal approvel" /Seeking Alpha

--"William Black: Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: Bank Of America’s Derivatives Death Rattle" /Daily Bail

--And there's some interesting comments over at Bloomberg.com from October 18th.
>> ^Trancecoach:

there's a part of me that just wants to walk into the local Bank of America branches and start showing this to the tellers and bankers who work there....

>> ^darkrowan:

For all the goofieness of this vid it does bring up a good question: Who's replacing them? Could be, like The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?


Seems to be, unlike popular uprisings in some other countries which have resulted in the overthrow of a dictator by the people, this has been paid gangs of thugs backed by NATO airstrikes dealing with Qadhafi and any local resistance. What seems most worrisome is the National Transitional Councils decision to give policy decision making authority out to corporations, for example:
Monetary policy is handled by the Central Bank of Benghazi
http://www.ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/

..and oil policy is handled by... The Libyan Oil Company.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

Pretty much the same as if Bank of America were given full authority to handle all policy decisions for America's banking system, or if Exxon Mobil got to make all fossil fuel and environmental policy.

You have that wrong too @ChaosEngine

Smart, dedicated and ruthless people perhaps will become rich--yes. However, wealth breeds more wealth than actual personality and dedication...And, to be fair, it is (In America at least) a trait of the average citizen to be greedy and ruthless anyways...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You have that so backward, it's not even funny.
Smart, dedicated and above all ruthless people will find a way to become rich, if that's their goal. They will find loopholes, exploit others and do whatever it takes. The best the government can do is simply to insure they don't trample too many people along the way.
On the other hand, most people will never be rich. Most do ok, but there will always be a section of the population who are poor, uneducated or simply unlucky. But the government can provide a safety net for them to insure they're not living in abject poverty. It can insure they are paid a legal minimum living wage.
>> ^lantern53:

Gov't can only keep you from becoming rich. It can't keep you from becoming poor.


btw, I assume all the libertarians here are in agreement with Bloomberg? After all, Zucotti park is privately owned, and if they want to kick out a bunch of smelly hippies, it's their property right?

You have that so backward, it's not even funny.

Smart, dedicated and above all ruthless people will find a way to become rich, if that's their goal. They will find loopholes, exploit others and do whatever it takes. The best the government can do is simply to insure they don't trample too many people along the way.

On the other hand, most people will never be rich. Most do ok, but there will always be a section of the population who are poor, uneducated or simply unlucky. But the government can provide a safety net for them to insure they're not living in abject poverty. It can insure they are paid a legal minimum living wage.

>> ^lantern53:


Gov't can only keep you from becoming rich. It can't keep you from becoming poor.



btw, I assume all the libertarians here are in agreement with Bloomberg? After all, Zucotti park is privately owned, and if they want to kick out a bunch of smelly hippies, it's their property right?

@bcglorf - neither of those examples you gave are responses to the American protests, and that's all that's relevant to this video. On the flip-side, OWS would like to see your 0 and raise you 5:

In NYC: Mayor Bloomberg has forcibly tried (and failed) to evict the protesters from the park (with riot police) so that they don't have to put up with them any more. They were going to be allowed back after a clean, but not with sleeping bags or equipment and with a ban on lieing down! This would have breached the protesters first amendment rights.

In Denver: More reports of police brutality, with protesters surrounded and dispersed with riot police, media tents also being torn down

In DC: 6 protesters arrested on charges of "unlawful conduct" for protesting in Capitol building

In Trenton: Plain clothes officers seize equipment and computers

On Wall Street itself: Worker ID's are now required to walk down the street

Obama is listening, but he's not listening to the protesters, instead he's listening to his military advisers, with a recent announcement that America will be sending troops to Central Africa to "fight against the Lord's Resistance Army" (no joke, look it up). 369,000 troops in 150 countries was not enough apparently.

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales:

A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries -- in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East -- has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.
...
For six decades around the world, Koch Industries has blazed a path to riches -- in part, by making illicit payments to win contracts, trading with a terrorist state, fixing prices, neglecting safety and ignoring environmental regulations. At the same time, Charles and David Koch have promoted a form of government that interferes less with company actions.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.


The US dollar has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, the US dollar would be worthless.

Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, gold would be worthless.

According to history, one of these statements is true, the other is laughably false.

So what do you measure you energy cost in?

>> ^marbles:

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.


Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.