Thread: Occupy Wall Street

Fox crew gets a taste of the baton and pepper spray. Ummm Ummm good.

Occupy Wall Street Arrests; Fox 5 Crew And Protesters Hit By Pepper Spray, Batons
Protest broadens scope

Updated: Thursday, 06 Oct 2011, 12:13 PM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 7:11 PM EDT

MYFOX NEW YORK STAFF REPORT

MYFOXNY.COM - While covering the Occupy Wall Street protests on Wednesday night, Fox 5 photographer Roy Isen was hit in the eyes by pepper spray from a police officer and Fox 5 reporter Dick Brennan was hit by an officer's baton.

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/occu...#ixzz1a1PLZbPs

Originally Posted by Oreo

This was posted on the Occupy Wall Streets Web-site yesterday--requesting that all demands be deleted-and let the organizers--and our lawyers--make the DEMAND LIST--

Apparently the original 13 Demands have made their way through the internet to about everywhere--and now their organizer's and lawyers--(whomever they are) are going to take charge. Any guesses as to whom the organizers and lawyers are? Hmm.

Attachment 12150


http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13179192816862

LOL. This people's revolution hasn't got long to last, it's sponsors will be pulling out anytime now.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Wouldn't it be just as risky for the company to pay for your education and then have you go work for someone else? It seems to me there would only be two way to offset that risk:

1. Pay very low wages, with the argument that the education the company paid for is part of the employee's compensation, or
2. Some sort of binding contract where the worker must work for the company for a certain number of years to repay the cost of the education.

Do either of those sound like desirable scenarios?

I think a system where corporations pay for education in return for a contractual obligation after graduation has some merit. Sounds a bit like ROTC. I can imagine a scenario where a leading law firm bids for the contract of a student who has been accepted to a good school or where companies offer incentives up front to students who are willing to pursue an MBA or a bachelors in computer science. As it stands now, since it costs the corporation nothing, of course they make a degree a requirement and workers feel they must get one to compete in the job market. If corporations did pay for higher education I'm willing to bet that the majority of jobs which now call for a degree would no longer do so.

Originally Posted by Oreo

This was posted on the Occupy Wall Streets Web-site yesterday--requesting that all demands be deleted-and let the organizers--and our lawyers--make the DEMAND LIST--

Apparently the original 13 Demands have made their way through the internet to about everywhere--and now their organizer's and lawyers--(whomever they are) are going to take charge. Any guesses as to whom the organizers and lawyers are? Hmm.

Attachment 12150


http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13179192816862

I fairly certain its the Koch brothers supporting them.

By the way I said all communists are and people wanting communism are traitors. Learn to read.

Originally Posted by michael h

I fairly certain its the Koch brothers supporting them.

Any proof, or more silly supposition?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

By the way I said all communists are and people wanting communism are traitors. Learn to read.

That's an impressive defense

Originally Posted by timj219

I think a system where corporations pay for education in return for a contractual obligation after graduation has some merit. Sounds a bit like ROTC. I can imagine a scenario where a leading law firm bids for the contract of a student who has been accepted to a good school or where companies offer incentives up front to students who are willing to pursue an MBA or a bachelors in computer science. As it stands now, since it costs the corporation nothing, of course they make a degree a requirement and workers feel they must get one to compete in the job market. If corporations did pay for higher education I'm willing to bet that the majority of jobs which now call for a degree would no longer do so.

That's fairly hilarious. Why should corporations have to pay for anyone's education? It's interesting how liberals approach this. It's like "for my job, I need someone who knows accounting, so rather than find someone who knows accounting, it's my job to train someone in accounting and then employ them." The only way you'd have a point is if it was a state of indentured servitude, where the person was not paid at all for the time they worked there in exchange for the education.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

LOL. This people's revolution hasn't got long to last, it's sponsors will be pulling out anytime now.

I agree that it won't last long as a "people's" revolution, but that's only because it's being coopted by organized labor.

I think within a week well see it mutate into a leftist corollary of the Tea Party movement with experienced organized labor leadership (at least behind the scenes if not outright).

From there the question will be whether or not they can avoid falling into the trap of allowing this to "officially" become a selfish, self-serving grab at futher wealth redistribution.

If they can avoid that, and focus strictly on reformation of the political process with an eye on reducing or eliminating corporate influence, I think they might be able to gain some real traction.

If I were one of the "organizers and lawyers" referenced in Oreo's post that's where my head would be at right about now: how do we take the publicity and popular support for this movement and turn it toward some well-defined, realistically attainable, progressive end?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Any proof, or more silly supposition?

A little humor for the day ... I thought all protests were funded by the Koch brothers, I could be mistaken. From the New Yorker below.


www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz1a1V0nPIK

Originally Posted by soot

From there the question will be whether or not they can avoid falling into the trap of allowing this to "officially" become a selfish, self-serving grab at futher wealth redistribution.

Yeah, we don't need two Democrat parties.

Originally Posted by Porras

No, he said anyone taking part in this protest is a traitor. I guess I overlooked that important difference.

It is a pretty important difference.

Originally Posted by soot

I agree that it won't last long as a "people's" revolution, but that's only because it's being coopted by organized labor.

Certainly some established power bloc is going to capitalize on this and attempt to corral and focus that anger just like the republicans did with the tea party. If it's labor, that will at least be a happier outcome than if it's the dems. Who knows it might still be possible to have a workers party in this country. Yes I know I'm dreaming.