There are many instances in American history where public demonstrations did accomplish something worthwhile or at least were important parts of the movements that accomplished things.
But who would have noticed? The point of a demonstration is to get noticed.
As someone is slightly right of center, I think you should grow a thicker skin. This site is 95% left of center and I have to live with that every time I’m here. If you have to read one post in 20 that speaks from the right I think you can manage it.
Bob Dylan, Ballad of a Thin Man
What the hell is the “pivot” in a circle jerk? Is this something I should google?
OWS was itself inspired by the Arab Spring. At least that’s what Adbusters was explicitly trying to channel when they hyped it.
No, just don’t ever fall for playing that position if you are ever invited to one. It is the equivalent of being anally raped without the common courtesy of a reach-around. That is just for your slang knowledge.
Well, clearly that worked out well for everyone…
But, think, if we were to have some such thing in America, the religionists would lose, as they deserve to lose, here and there. They would not have the slightest prayer [snerk] of winning,
Didn’t happen for us. The first time we knew we were in foreclosure was when they sent us something saying we were in foreclosure. We had to stop it with a bankruptcy. And our lawyer sure hasn’t told us anything about anything that can help us now, and everything I’ve seen doesn’t work once you’ve been in foreclosure.
If there’s something we can do to make this easier, it would be very welcome news to us. (And should probably be discussed in PM rather than out in the open like this.)
A notice of foreclosure (or having your debt “accelerated”) doesn’t happen until you’re 90+ days delinquent, typically, and have been referred to the bank’s foreclosure department. Once the foreclosure process begins, it can take anywhere from 60-90 days, or up to years, before the property actually goes to foreclosure auction/sale. So the “help to avoid foreclosure” means things you can do AFTER it is already in the process, but before it’s sold. Most people usually know they’re behind and may have sought help prior to falling 90+ days behind, but if there is no active workout plan in place, the referral happens and then things get harder and messier - and more expensive.
Pro-Tip; you cannot get a HAMP modification unless you are at least 90 days past due… so the government programs only kick in after you’re in the foreclosure process, for the most part.
If you’d like to go into details, PM me I’d be happy to offer some advice.
Generated sympathy for financial institutions amongst WHOM? The only ones who could have sympathy for them were already their sycophants.
Um, who exactly are these right-winger doters, these apologists for Skilling’s and Madoff’s methods of wealth accumulation? I must have missed those editorials. Boy, I’m infuriated just picturing them!
Yeah, that’s pretty hard to imagine. I can’t see that OWS generated any sympathy for financial institutions even if it wasn’t able to accomplish anything.
You know, those doters who are always doting on things!
No, you silly, no one was foolish enough to applaud Skilling, Lay et al, after they were convicted of felonies. Yet they received plenty of praise before their fall, even though it was obvious their profits derived from trickery and exploitation rather than creating value.
Oh, right. Um, can you point to those people who pointed out the obvious trickery and exploitation prior to their falls, since it was so, well, obvious? And then (and this will seal the deal), the people who applauded their efforts even after this obvious trickery had been exposed for its obvious obviousness. Please hurry. My blood is boiling over the thought of those rascals, and this will provide much-needed closure for me.
Oh, yeah, those guys! I forgot about them. 
ETA: (To septimus) And don’t forget Bernie. I’m especially interested in the bastards who gave the thumbs up to his shenanigans–AFTER IT WAS OBVIOUS! A-holes…
Googling for old news stories is hard. I’m rather certain that, with effort, I could find articles applauding Enron’s wealth accumulaters, and also find articles pointing out their trickery and lack of economic utility. Finding a single commentator doing both in the same article would be much harder. 
In any event, I’m not going to expend the effort. Your mind’s made up.
That’s funny. Dude (you’re a dude, right?), you set up a straw man. “Those damn conservatives, their love and support of the profit motive won’t even stop at guys like Madoff and Skilling.” The only problem? The population of people who applauded Madoff’s and Skilling’s methods (knowing what those methods were) is, well, zero. Don’t bother googling, because your only hope will be to find some whacko on a blog somewhere. And I’m not certain even that’s much of a chance.
“Even those villains they support! Can you believe it?” Um, no. And neither can anyone else. It would have been easy to just say, “you know, I probably did overstate my case,” since it is exceedingly easy to construct an arguable position that there is a dedication to profit that crosses ethical lines. You needn’t invoke monsters, unless (as appears to be the case with you) your intention is to demonize your opponents and create some monolithic “conservative” movement whose evil beliefs and ethics don’t vary at all, not even when faced with unambiguously awful pricks like Madoff.
I keep hearing that no financial exec was charged with a crime, nor went to jail for the actions they took that precipitated the enormous economic correction we suffered in 2008.
If that statement is true, is it true because no laws were broken?
Did the SEC subsequently put regulations in place that would make those actions illegal now and in future?
If not, why not?
What laws do you believe were broken? That might be a good starting point. Your question is rather broad.
I stand by my claim that some commentators were applauding Enron’s profit-making at the same time other commentators were pointing out that Enron’s gains were due to trickery with no public utility. True, I phrased my point in a somewhat exaggerated way, but the essential point remains.
Are you claiming that applauders didn’t exist, or that detractors didn’t exist? NY Times has easily accessed archives and I think detractors will turn up. The applauders would be more likely to appear in other periodicals – do you know any with good archives? I have no motive to look for cites – you’re the one who wants them – but if you doubt NY Times will show detractors writing before an appropriate date, we can negotiate an experiment…
Glorification of wealth however earned or inherited is standard among rightish commentators and politicians, though I’ve none bookmarked and it’s hard to Google for proof. (I do recall a sickening Forbes magazine article which condoned a fraud because it was used by illegal tax evaders rather than “criminals.”)
(BTW, discussion of Enron is confusing because there were two phases: In phase 1, Enron’s coffers were enriched by gouging California retail users. The phase caused no backlash or prosecution. In phase 2, Enron’s coffers were depleted as insiders gouged Enron’s shareholders and bondholders for personal enrichment. That’s what led to prosecution, though I focus on phase 1 as the big crime.)
Also BTW, on the subject of frauds associated with mortgage crisis, several banks have agreed to pay largish fines; at least one baker has been convicted of a crime. (Admittedly “drops in the bucket” compared with the total scope of the frauds.)