With the MF Global fiasco, and congress engaged in soft insider trading they made legal, just curious why anyone would think it wouldn't be appropriate to protest against Wall Street and the corruption going on there.

It's definitely working for them, selfish a-holes.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/11/22/21499/occupy-la-gets-incentives/

Los Angeles is offering them $1 rent on a 10,000sq/ft space in an underground mall for 10 years. That's savings of almost $200,000 a year.
And they are to be given free farm land.

If this happens, then no way people will shop at that mall anymore. sucks for other store owners.
and no way they are going to go work to produce anything.

Great job, L.A.

Well the park in Toronto is being cleared and I must say the police are acting in a very respectful manner so far.

Well, while Occupy Wall Street may not be working nation and planet wide.... it sure is doing a great job in making LA's city hall cower in fear..

"Lafferty said city officials have offered protesters a $1-a-year lease on a 10,000-square-foot office space near City Hall. He said officials also promised land elsewhere for protesters who wish to farm, as well as additional housing for the contingent of homeless people who joined the camp."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1122-occupy-la-move-20111122,0,1592348.story?track=lat-pick


I think i know where everyone is going to start protesting now!

And yet, a lot of the OWS people seem to be mad about this.  Houses for the homeless, office buildings to make real change, and farmland to put in that communal society most groups seem to want?   What's not to like?

Because

A) MF Global is how the system should work?  A company takes on too many risky investments, therefore it fails?  What are you suggesting Wall Street should be devoid of all risk?

If your talking about the missing funds transfered to try and cover their own debt.  That was already illegal.  So I don't really see your point.

B) Congressional insider trading isn't wall street.  It's Congress.  If anyone on Wallstreet did what congress people did their looking at a 10 year sentence or more.

If they want to occupy wasington.  Then sure, go ahead.

At LEAST half a billion dollars has gone missing.  This is beyond risky investments, it is out and outright fraud (aka, Corzine would go to jail).  This level of fraud in Wall Street is larger than people would think.  It goes beyond merely taking excesss risks, to outright theft.  Do I need to go and hunt more?

Here:

Koch brothers getting tip off from MF Global, and moved money: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-dicker/the-koch-brothers-and-mf-_b_1089906.html

Robo-signings:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44365184/ns/business-real_estate/t/robo-signing-scandal-may-date-back-late-s/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure_crisis#Robo-signing_controversy

And more:

http://publicintelligence.net/banks-dont-make-promises/

And more:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

In regards to congress and the scandal, there is also not just insider trading, but also sweetheart deals on IPO offerings and other things.

Again, you will say there is NO reason to end up staging protests against Wall Street, when fraud after fraud after fraud happens there?

First off... Russia Today?  Seriously?

You do know that's a legitamite propaganda news station right?

While the huffington post article is nothing but outright speculation as far as people being tipped off... done so, because well.... the huffington post is around fox News level "quasi-propaganda."

Thirdly, in regards to the Rolling Stone article...AGAIN it's not an idictment of Wall Street, it's about how SOME people in wallstreet committed crimes and GOVERNMENT refused to punish them.

Though... as for your question... should we occupy society because crime happens?

Hell no.

That SOME part of some group is committing crimes is no reason to protest the entire group... or even part of it.

Crime happens.  If the crime isn't properly punished?   You take it up with the politicians.

Yes, ever place should be occupied, and watched, and maybe if people were awake, such crimes could be reduced.  But stay asleep, it is a problem.  How one occupies is key.  Well, I could point out how you ignored the problems with robo-signings (outside of dismiss the entire issue because of one video by RT), because there are deeper issues here.

According to what you want to argue, no matter the problem, one is only supposed to protest in front of government buildings, and petititoning government in general:  

Feel there is a labor dispute?  Protest government.

Feel there is a problem with organized crime, with known mob bosses?  Protest government.

See people dumping toxic chemicals illegally?  Protest government.

See there are poor and they need help?  Don't do like the Salvation Army does, protest government.

Have problems with drunk drivers?  Don't state protest in public about this, protest government.

Have a problem with corporate lobbyists having too much influence?  Don't protest at K-Street, protest the government.

In short, you are advocating a view that EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM is addresed through government action.  Very likely the way we have now, which is to hire a lobbyist to petition government, and raise funds to donate to a political campaign.  Are you really a conservative, or even have remotely libertarian leanings?  If so, then how can you advocate a view that every single problem in society is addressed through government action?  Which ends up being absurd, because consumer actions against the major banks, to move the money, did cause them to waive the monthly fee.

Well, I guess since you consider the source of information THE main, if not only, criterion for its accuracy, I guess then we need to through some other sources and ask if you find them too leftist for you.  After all, supposedly information becomes instantly invalid because of who says it:

And since you have problems with the above issue, how about then Forbes, or is that too leftist for you also?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2011/05/24/wall-street-fraud-hidden-in-the-shadows/

And do you find Zero Hedge to leftist for you?

http://www.zerohedge.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

How about Fox Business, which has an entire section dedicated to Wall Street fraud on their website.  Are they too leftist for you?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/wall-street-fraud.htm

How about Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernake? Are they too leftist for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731G71Sahok

How about RedState.com?  Is that too leftist for you?

Hey, you know it is ok to have problem with MF Global.  After all a Democrat is behind it:
http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2011/11/22/mf-global-wall-street-fraud-extends-down-to-the-farm/

At least have the decency to be a partisan hack like redstate.com and call Wall Street fraud for Democrats only.  If you refuse to even look at, and consider this a valid case, then you are willfully blind, for very likely reasons of wanting to defend an ideology at all costs.  This does happen.  But to continue to engage in such a manner means you have little credibility in what you say, because you have made yourself a tool of entitites who seek to do harm.  Well, I hope at least these entities send you cookies from time to time.  A feeling of smugness from believing you are right, does little to actually change things.  Well, at least one doesn't come bloated with fat from smugness, although there is other forms of bloating that are there.

A) I ignored robo signings because "In the fall of 2010, major U.S. lenders such as JP Morgan Chase,^[7] Ally Financial f/k/a GMAC, and Bank of America^[8] suspended judicial and non-judicial foreclosures across the United States over the potentially fraudulent practice of robo-signing."

B) We aren't talking about some shadow orginzation that there isn't full info about.  Like the mob.  We are talking about a subsection of a group of people who are breaking regulations.... that could eaisly be spotted by regulators and aren't... and then not all of them are punished by the government?  Yes?

That's like saying because some people in a neighberhood are selling drugs in plain view of the police we should demonize the entire neighberhood and protest the entire neighberhood.

Though in order.

Labor violations?  If everyone knows they're going on and are unpunished?  Yeah I'm blaming the government.  Well them and the individual companies I can point out as doing it.  If Nike is using child labor I'm not blasting Addias and Converse as well.

Toxic Waste & The Mob?  Same as above.  I mean what?  I should protest Italian Americans?

Poor starving and need help?  It's not under the jurisdiction of the government,  it's not a law and order system.  Though I WOULD like to see the implementaion of a negative income tax to replace all the welfare programs we have because it'd be more effective.

How do you protest drunk drivers?  It's not like there is a drunk driver's assosiation.

Finally, well yeah.  Politicians are the ones taking the bribes.  So they're the root cause.  When you bribe ALL of Walstreet for bribes, your lumping in a lot of people who DON'T lobby the government.  A lot of companies pay their full corporate tax rate, and these groups are being targeted with all the rest, outside of some popular leftist lobbying groups anwyay.

C) I'm not a libretarian so much as someone who thinks we NEED the government to be libretarian focused because of the situation and size of the US and the US government sucks.  I can't really see anyone else handling "regulatory framework" though.  If we were in New Zealand for example, I'd be for a host of things I'm against in the US.

D) That forbes article agrees with me?  It's complaining largely about government ineffectiviness, and consumers not doing due diligence.

E)  Zero Hedge?  Depends on your definition of leftist.  People are writing under the name of a fictional character who's goal in like was to blow up modern consumerist society while sabotaging it from the inside and outside.  Really it'd suggest anarchist leanings more then anything.

I would consider it the same as every other rumor mill.  There are about 100 lines of BS for every actual moment of truth.

F) I'm not saying Wallstreet Fraud isn't happening?  I'm saying it wouldn't be happening if government bothered to regulate it, rather then think up new regulations for things that regulations already exist for.

G)  It sounds like Alan Greenspan is agreeing with me... what's he saying?  "We need more enforcement of existing laws."  Well that and higher holdings requirements.  Which has already passed.

H)  No, Redstate is just as bad as Huffington Post.

Aside from which.... when did I say people shouldn't be mad about MF Global?  I'm saying the situation is working how it should.  They're going out of buisness, and chances are the executives WILL do some jail time here because it's one big case that's in everyones view.

I mean, what's the alternative here?

El oh El Russia Today. Too legit to quit.