Occupy Wall Street Protests :: Smug Arrogant Faces

[Solve et Coagula]

Keith Olbermann and Amy Goodman Call out Wall Street Protests Media Blackout

EDITORS NOTE: Keith Olbermann and Amy Goodman are covering it. Good! Now, lets read it in the NYTimes and listen to it on FOX News and other fair & balanced, and objective Media!

It’s A War Going On! It’s A Struggle

Amy Goodman: Occupy Wall Street Protest Enters Second Week
Keith Olbermann: pointed out Wednesday night on Countdown that the major newspapers had been ignoring the five-day-long “Occupy Wall Street” protests, but would have scrambled to cover a similar-sized tea party protest.

“Why isn’t any major news outlet covering this?” he asked. “If that’s a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Ben Bernanke putting stimulus funds into it, it’s the lead story on every network news cast. How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?”
His guest, author Will Bunch, suggested the disconnect was caused in part by the news networks being out of touch with the pain of the 25 million Americans who are unemployed.

Continue to read:
http://www.zenzoneforum.com/threads/1965...post186445

[drummer]

[Armilus]

Why the red flags? Thanks, but no thanks. I rather see Wall St. crooks than people with red flags. Also, if Michael Moore is supporting them, that's another red flag right there. I believe America was founded on the principles of liberty, not collectivism or communism.

[yeti]

The actual article is @ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/01/...-blackout/

This poster would make a good T-shirt:

[yeti]

(10-02-2011 07:15 PM)Armilus Wrote:  Why the red flags? Thanks, but no thanks. I rather see Wall St. crooks than people with red flags. Also, if Michael Moore is supporting them, that's another red flag right there. I believe America was founded on the principles of liberty, not collectivism or communism.

Is it liberty when Wall St. is handed trillions of dollars which the people have to pay for, and for which they had no say? No, it's collectivism or communism, for one class but not the other. It's more accurately described as class warfare.

But hey, dismiss a whole crowd of people who are exercising their liberty to protest against the worst criminal fraud in human history because you don't like the colour of some of their flags. I'll leave it up to others to put a label on that one...

[Armilus]

Idea of a class warfare is being perpetuated by reds/Marxists who want to manipulate ignorant masses, who think only worker class is worth something. Idiots who never respect natural laws, innovation and human genius. In short, communists, enemies of free humanity. Empty-headed dreamers who are good for nothing as proven countless times in our history.

I reject the idea they may in any shape or form represent people who want freedom, because red flags are exactly what Wall St. wants. After all, who financed communist "revolution" in Russia? Label as much as you want, i will never support something which killed ~200 million people in 20th century in the name of "equality".

[yeti]

(10-02-2011 07:58 PM)Armilus Wrote:  Idea of a class warfare is being perpetuated by reds/Marxists who want to manipulate ignorant masses, who think only worker class is worth something.

I believe that the upper class is waging war on everybody else. Does that make me a communist?

(10-02-2011 07:58 PM)Armilus Wrote:  I reject the idea they may in any shape or form represent people who want freedom, because red flags are exactly what Wall St. wants.

I agree. They want to portray the people protesting them as communists. What makes you think they didn't place these red flag wavers into the crowd for exactly that reason? What makes you think that the percentage of communists in the crowd was more than trivial? The media maybe?

(10-02-2011 07:58 PM)Armilus Wrote:  After all, who financed communist "revolution" in Russia? Label as much as you want, i will never support something which killed ~200 million people in 20th century in the name of "equality".

The Wall St. crooks laugh at people like you who won't see the forest for the trees. You have dismissed an entire protest movement because of some red flags. Congratulations, you have fallen right into their trap!

So tell me, how does it feel to be, knowingly or not, a shill for the perpetrators of the biggest financial crime in human history?

[Armilus]

I stand by what i said, no matter what reason, i won't support the communists. They do not represent me, and i won't support any protest organized by them. The fact they have Michael Moore on their side, who is 200+ million USD "fat", speaks a lot about who the "shill" is.

In other words, the fact i see the forest over trees is the reason i reject these protests even when i would normally want more protesting done by people, but only when organized by individuals who are for liberty, not commies who are nothing else than tools of those they are protesting against.

Btw, Hitler was against Wall St. too! Do you think people would welcome protests organized by some group using 3rd Reich swastika flags? After all Hitler did much more against usury than they did.

[yeti]

(10-02-2011 08:20 PM)Armilus Wrote:  I stand by what i said, no matter what reason, i won't support the communists. They do not represent me, and i won't support any protest organized by them.

You have no proof whatsoever that the protests were organized by communists, so stop pretending that you do.

(10-02-2011 08:20 PM)Armilus Wrote:  the fact i see the forest over trees is the reason i reject these protests

You DO NOT see the forest for the trees. You see a few trees with a red flag and you thus dismiss the whole protest. You are a shill for the people who are enslaving you.

[Armilus]

Yes, like writing it in bold will make your point more valid, hahaha!

Seriously, you are a shill for people who are shills for the people they are protesting against. At same time you think you are not a shill, and see shills everywhere.

Other stuff i already explained.

[yeti]

(10-02-2011 08:39 PM)Armilus Wrote:  Yes, like writing it in bold will make your point more valid, hahaha!

Yes, like writing it in bold makes it any less valid, hahaha!

Why have you failed to answer my simple question?

yeti Wrote:I believe that the upper class is waging war on everybody else. Does that make me a communist?

The upper class is waging a class war right now, which many of them admit. Does that make them communists?

(10-02-2011 08:39 PM)Armilus Wrote:  Seriously, you are a shill for people who are shills for the people they are protesting against.

Seriously? You might want to explain exactly WTF you're failing to say.

While you're at it, please provide proof that the most important occupation in U.S. history against the largest financial crime perpetrated in the history of mankind is organized by communists.

Then maybe you can explain how tens thousands of people who are openly demanding to see these scum do the perp walk are somehow shills for them.

(10-02-2011 08:39 PM)Armilus Wrote:  At same time you think you are not a shill, and see shills everywhere.

I certainly try not to be a shill, unlike you who dives into their traps willingly. Worse yet, you condemn the people who have started the most important movement we will probably see in our lifetime with a lie which any fool can see through.

Shame on you. I've put my ass on the line to run this site, throwing a promising career out the window in the process. How fucking DARE you call me a shill, you fucking prick? My address is easy enough to find. Why don't you come over and call me a shill to my face?

[Armilus]

Relax. That stuff about being a shill was a joke, although i would appreciate if you don't use this label so freely since it loses all the weight. You know like those Joe Blow type crap conspiracy shows where they accuse pretty much anyone of being a shill.

Protesting Wall St. at this time is patently stupid. Dark clouds are gathering above Wall St.:

Quote:Hence, Morgan Stanley was down over 10% on Friday. If French banks go down because of their exposure to Greece, Morgan Stanley will go down too. And if Morgan Stanley goes, so does everyone on Wall Street who deals with it. Which is all of Wall Street.

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/20...tered.html

Most traders today are worried about the downward economy; last thing they care about are over-educated and under-employed protesters on the streets. Btw, it is possible to turn a profit in a downward economy, for example put options and even hedge funds can be profitable. When everybody loses money, you can make money betting on that. It works only for a few at time, relatively speaking. So, if people want to hurt traders, Wall Street and Forex, then instead of protesting start using same methods traders are using. System cannot support more than a very small percent profiting in parallel.

Don't worry about me diving into traps, these people are not that complex, they are easy to understand and manipulate. If i disagree with protesters it doesn't mean i support bankers. Us vs them is another trap used for manipulation. Protests i support only when i see this will create enough chaos to start something greater, i don't care about protesters themselves and their issues.

[Solve et Coagula]

Imprisoned Wallstreet Protesters should apply for political Asylum in Switzerland!!!

You're all highly welcome in Switzerland!!!

Political asylum in Switzerland
Any person who is threatened or persecuted in their home country in accordance with criteria recognised under international law will be granted asylum in Switzerland.

Swiss asylum policy
Swiss asylum policy incorporates the basic principles of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The asylum procedure serves to determine whether a person is entitled to protection. The revised Asylum Act entered into force in part on 1 January 2007, and the remaining provisions will take full legal effect on 1 January 2008. The Federal Office for Migration (FOM) is in charge of implementing and enforcing asylum policy and the asylum law.

Asylum applications
An asylum application can be submitted verbally or in writing to a Swiss representation abroad, to a border post, to the border control at a Swiss airport or to a reception and application centres. Although asylum applications are not bound to any formal provisions, they should include supporting evidence whenever possible. If an application is made at the border, the border guards notify the Federal Office for Migration (FOM).

Asylum proceedings
Asylum proceedings begin with filing an asylum application. Applicants have the right to stay in Switzerland throughout the proceedings and are granted an N permit for this purpose.

Decision to grant asylum
After careful consideration, the Federal Office for Migration (FOM) rules on the application and on whether the asylum seeker is granted residence or has to return to their home country.

Positive decision: asylum and residence in Switzerland granted
Further to a positive decision, the cantonal immigration authorities grant acknowledged refugees a residence permit for third-country nationals (B permit). After five years, this permit is usually replaced by a settlement permit (C permit).

Negative decision
There are three types of negative decisions concerning asylum:
A decision to deny asylum (material decision) considers the reasons for the flight, the applicant’s credibility and the relevance of granting asylum.
Inadmissibility of the application (formal decision) is decided based on a review of qualification for refugee status.

If preventive deportation (formal decision) is pronounced, the applicant is deported to another country before the procedure is concluded.

Temporary admission
Asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected, but who cannot return to their country, can obtain temporary admission to Switzerland. Temporary admission is granted if expulsion is:
- unreasonable (e.g. due to war or risk of serious personal emergency situation)
- inadmissible (violation of the European Convention on Human Rights)
- impossible (the journey back is not possible for technical reasons)

Appeals
Asylum seekers have the right to lodge an appeal against the negative decision. For information about the necessary steps (which differ for each of the three decisions), please contact the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) and the cantonal immigration authorities. These are also the places to contact if you are in financial straits or to claim the right for help in the event of an emergency situation.

FOM - Addresses of cantonal partner authorities

Return assistance
Anyone in the sphere of asylum can apply for return assistance. For information on the return assistance, please contact the FOM. Even persons who have been officially granted asylum can receive return assistance if they wish to remigrate to their native country. Applications for return assistance should be submitted to the return counselling office in your canton.
FOM - Cantonal counselling offices (in German)
Size: 36 kb | Type: PDF

Family reunification
During the asylum proceedings, asylum seekers are not entitled to family reunification. Acknowledged refugees (B or C Permit), however, may send for their family members if there are no reasons to the contrary. Temporarily admitted refugees (F Permit) may submit an application for family reunification at the earliest three years following the decision on temporary admission. Applications for family reunification can be submitted to a Swiss representation abroad or to the Federal Office for Migration (FOM).

http://www.ch.ch/schweiz/00157/00176/index.html?lang=en

[Armilus]

Officially they were arrested for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn bridge, you can't ask for political asylum based on that. It could maybe fly if they had been arrested on false charges, but there are videos showing them blocking traffic, so there is not much they can do about it. Most of them were already released anyway.

[FastTadpole]

@Hans Olo :: Strange Reaction, I didn't think the masses were so ignorant to the cartel causal factors namely prisons / crony corporations / government

Here's another dot to connect with this particular incident:

Quote:JP Morgan Funded NYPD Mass Arrests Over 700 Peaceful Occupy Wall Street Protesters
October 2, 2011

Source: The Intel Hub

The NYPD has arrested over 700 protesters who were occupying the Brooklyn Bridge in what could very well be a defining moment in the battle for freedom and liberty in America.

The police apparently corralled the protesters(depending on whose story you believe) onto the Brooklyn Bridge and then started their arrests of American citizens protesting the very banks that have destroyed this country from within.

The NYPD is essentially doing the dirty work for the banks, which makes complete sense when you consider the fact that JP Morgan actually FUNDS The New York City Police Department.

That’s right, the very police department that has been filmed numerous times beating and macing the Occupy Wall Street protesters has received a considerable amount of money from the very banks that the protesters are targeting!

   
Screenshot from JP Morgan Chase Press Release

This is an obvious conflict of interest that the NYPD and corporate controlled media do not want you to know or talk about.

Obviously there are good people on the NYPD force but how are we supposed to believe that the NYPD as a whole just wants to protect their city when they are funded by the very banksters being targeted by the Occupy Wall Street protests?

http://www.blacklistednews.com/JP_Morgan...8/Y/M.html

Conflict of interest may be status quo and it is circumstantial considering this isn't an uncommon practice - but is it right? NYPD is supposed to be a public institution but then again corporations donate to politician why not the enforcement arm as well?

Here's a direct link to the NYPD press release on the JP Morgan Chase website:
http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/H...&width=850