Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

Gingko

FlashD wrote: »

In fairness, I don't know what planet you have been living on for the last 10 years but I saw plenty of 'innocent citizens' (as you call them) who partied hard during the boom years with bags of borrowed cash from the banks.

I believe these 'innocent citzens' also need to pay their debts. They were well able to spend ....now let them pay it back![/QUOTE]

Yes absolutely people should pay off the private debts that they have incurred themselves but that is not the issue? The issue is the bank debts that are not of our making and are not our debts to pay!!!!

MadYaker

Gingko wrote: »

FlashD wrote: »

In fairness, I don't know what planet you have been living on for the last 10 years but I saw plenty of 'innocent citizens' (as you call them) who partied hard during the boom years with bags of borrowed cash from the banks.

I believe these 'innocent citzens' also need to pay their debts. They were well able to spend ....now let them pay it back![/QUOTE]

Yes absolutely people should pay off the private debts that they have incurred themselves but that is not the issue? The issue is the bank debts that are not of our making and are not our debts to pay!!!!

Well actually neither of those things are the issue because this thread is about the OG group...

This is going in cirlces now and seems to have been taken over by trolls and idiots. Maybe a mod could close it until something worth talking about in relation to this issue comes up?

biko

Madyaker banned from thread

Sponge Bob

People are losing sight of the fact that there is a basic human right to protest and object ( individually or collectively) and that the Occupy movement has developed a global zeitgeist franchise....even in Galway.

darraghking22

dilallio wrote: »

Update:
Do discuss the politics of the occupy movement (particularly in Galway) and whether it's even a good idea - but any attempts at non adult civil discussion will get you banned.
If you try to personalise this discussion it will get you banned.
Insulting other members will get you banned.
Straying off topic will get you banned.
Stupid jokes will get you banned.
Calling the occupy members names (crusties, hippies, losers) or trying to belittle them will get you banned.

Thought this was supposed to be a discussion forum......apparently not!!!!

biko

This is a discussion forum but that doesn't mean you can say what you like.
Unless you can handle yourself in an adult manner and discuss without resorting to name-calling and trolling you are not welcome.

This forum is not a democracy and there is no free speech. This forum is owned by private individuals and does not give you the same rights as a democratic society.

Red_Wake

Any chance we could set up an Occupy Boards.ie group?:rolleyes:

inisboffin

Red_Wake wrote: »

Any chance we could set up an Occupy Boards.ie group?:rolleyes:

I'd say the place to ask is not here, as boards.ie is international. Mods, perhaps you could move the question to the correct forum and we can still look at an answer? Maybe there's a formal group request or something.



Fair enough question whether you were serious or not!

biko

Anyone can set up a boards.ie group.

Go here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/group.php?
At bottom of page is "Create a New Group".

Fuinseog

FlashD wrote: »

In fairness, I don't know what planet you have been living on for the last 10 years but I saw plenty of 'innocent citizens' (as you call them) who partied hard during the boom years with bags of borrowed cash from the banks.

I believe these 'innocent citzens' also need to pay their debts. They were well able to spend ....now let them pay it back!

well no, apparently someone else must pay their debts. The EU is apparently duty bound to bail us out cos we are such good craic and while they may owe us we owe them nothing. even during the boom times we were still getting free money from the EU.

ladhrann

FlashD wrote: »

In fairness, I don't know what planet you have been living on for the last 10 years but I saw plenty of 'innocent citizens' (as you call them) who partied hard during the boom years with bags of borrowed cash from the banks.

I believe these 'innocent citzens' also need to pay their debts. They were well able to spend ....now let them pay it back!

Please explain this to me in terms I can understand. Banks let money as a multiple of their deposit holdings (previously 3% of total capitalisation). So this made-up money is loaned out on irresponsible terms. Now people can't pay back this made-up money and its a big problem? Even though it didn't exist in the first place? Then the Irish taxpayer should repay unsecured obligations of foreign creditors, again for no reason I can fathom?

Don't worry I understand the reserve model of banking and fiat currencies and so on. However a determination to bleed the public dry to satiate the money markets at the expense of all else is no part of classic economic theory.

Now to the next issue. The right of individuals to protest and express their opinions is laid out in the constitution. How it could be contoversial for individuals to occupy public space to express their opinions is beyond me.

What ought be more controversial is the appropriation of public space by Galway City Council for extended periods of time (4 weeks) for a rather ersatz market.


Riddle me this now, Fu Manchu

antoobrien

ladhrann wrote: »

Please explain this to me in terms I can understand. Banks let money as a multiple of their deposit holdings (previously 3% of total capitalisation). So this made-up money is loaned out on irresponsible terms. Now people can't pay back this made-up money and its a big problem? Even though it didn't exist in the first place? Then the Irish taxpayer should repay unsecured obligations of foreign creditors, again for no reason I can fathom?

Something the occupy protesters don't seem to want to recognise understand is that it's the 99% who caused the problem. Among other things they:
repeatedly voted with their pockets (i.e. kept FF in power because they kept lowering taxes, renewing tax breaks etc)
borrowed money that they couldn't really afford - not just mortgages, but credit cards, loans for foreign holidays, expensive cars etc. If they couldn't get the money from the Irish banks, they just went to the foreign ones (unintentionally making the Irish banks more reckless).

There's a willingness to point the finger everywhere else, but if anybody wants to apportion blame start by looking in the mirror.

ladhrann wrote: »

The right of individuals to protest and express their opinions is laid out in the constitution. How it could be contoversial for individuals to occupy public space to express their opinions is beyond me.

It is illegal to camp in areas that are not designated for camping - e.g. Eyre Square - therefore those occupying the tents are breaking the law. That illegal act is what makes their protest controversial.

ladhrann wrote: »

What ought be more controversial is the appropriation of public space by Galway City Council for extended periods of time (4 weeks) for a rather ersatz market.

Nothing unusual, controversial, illegal or immoral about the city council taking space that it manages on behalf of the people, in order to provide some service to the people (in this case a christmas market).

mcnutt

mcnutt wrote: »

Firstly


I'm not bothered one way or another, if people want to camp on eyre square then why not. This whole trend seems to be going nowhere. Back and forth like watching tennis


Secondly


What I would like to know is this; If the “protest” is against the moneytary system and how it exploits people, then why move for the Christmas market?

Surely the point of any protest is to make life difficult for those who practice what is being protested against? And if moving is deemed to be the right thing to do then why not move to Shop street?

I ask again. why not rub noses with those you say you are protesting against?

factual lies

My brother has been given notice to evacuate his home by the end of the week and he currently has nowhere to go (will probably move in with me for a bit), but he was thinking of moving into eyre square and starting an anti-occupy galway camp and see if he is allowed stay as long, anyone interested?

Irishgoatman

factual lies wrote: »

My brother has been given notice to evacuate his home by the end of the week and he currently has nowhere to go (will probably move in with me for a bit), but he was thinking of moving into eyre square and starting an anti-occupy galway camp and see if he is allowed stay as long, anyone interested?

I probably shouldn't be answering, but I think you are missing the point of the Galway Protest Group.

Eman Resu

There is one?

factual lies

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I probably shouldn't be answering, but I think you are missing the point of the Galway Protest Group.

We're not, just using it as a way of getting by with no rent to pay. We don't agree with the protest and the fact that it can go ahead without interruption leaves a gap open for others to camp out in eyre square once they have an agenda, in this instance we will use an anti-occupy galway movement so as to settle any issues from the autorities. If my brother and anyone else who wishes to join him is moved along, then it will mean that the occupy galway movement will have too also, all is fair in love and war as the saying goes.

biko

factual lies banned from thread for trolling, don't post again.

Gingko

It's baffling that some people on here still don't get the debts issue??? If certain people "partied hard" during the Celtic tiger years and ran up big debts then yes they are accountable for those PERSONAL PRIVATE DEBTS. But we are all paying for the banks own debts that they incurred themselves through utter greed, rogue trading, irresponsible lending and corruption.

Some of the accusations made against the Occupy group and it's supporters are mind numbing? They are doing this very much for the greater good. Some critics stereotyping them (i'm a supporter) as "crusties" etc. Nonsense! I'm a qualified landscape Architect. Worked hard during the boom years, paid my taxes etc.

I dealt with FF corruption on a very real level on the ground! Spoke out against them during the boom years. But I am increasingly feeling the noose tighten because of the disasterous aftermath of the bankers and the FF governments stubborn fumblings. It is not the majority of people to blame!! The majority did not vote for FF and it's corrupt cronies, FG SF L GP SP IND etc still represented the majority. The majority did not know what Sean Fitzpatrick and co were really up to either. People who are knocking the Occupy group are doing so blindly. If we can all unite then we can all get a better deal for all of us and our quality of lives may not get any worse.

antoobrien

Gingko wrote: »

It's baffling that some people on here still don't get the debts issue??? If certain people "partied hard" during the Celtic tiger years and ran up big debts then yes they are accountable for those PERSONAL PRIVATE DEBTS. But we are all paying for the banks own debts that they incurred themselves through utter greed, rogue trading, irresponsible lending and corruption.

It's an easy enough answer, one that people don't like to hear because it means taking responsibility for actions.

The mortgage, car loans, personal loan & credit card markets in Ireland generated those losses. The demand for these products generated these debts.

You can argue it was the banks, the developers, the garage owners, the travel agents etc ad nauseum, caused it. they didn't, the contributed sure, didn't recognize the signs, couldn't get out, but did not cause the problem.

There was one big driver that very few people are willing to admit was there (or want to absolve of blame) - the Irish public.

Gingko

antoobrien wrote: »

It's an easy enough answer, one that people don't like to hear because it means taking responsibility for actions.

The mortgage, car loans, personal loan & credit card markets in Ireland generated those losses. The demand for these products generated these debts.

You can argue it was the banks, the developers, the garage owners, the travel agents etc ad nauseum, caused it. they didn't, the contributed sure, didn't recognize the signs, couldn't get out, but did not cause the problem.

There was one big driver that very few people are willing to admit was there (or want to absolve of blame) - the Irish public.

Sorry Anto, but irresponsible lending is just that! The banks are in the business, they know the business inside out! They are at the very root of the problem! Loan sharking in a money pyramid.

antoobrien

Gingko wrote: »

Sorry Anto, but irresponsible lending is just that! The banks are in the business, they know the business inside out! They are at the very root of the problem! Loan sharking in a money pyramid.

You're trying to deflect attention away from the fact that people were being irresponsible with their spending and were willing to look the other way when they knew they shouldn't be getting loans.

People were willing to go to "sub prime" lenders because they couldn't get loans out of the banks.

I'm sure you've heard the same stories I have about falsified pay slips etc being submitted for loans & mortgages.

I'm sure you remember the stories of people buying houses & apartments off the plans, without even viewing a show house.

Do you remember michael lynn - an extreme case I know - the banks didn't follow up on his guarantees and it turns out that he was giving the same property as guarantee for several loans.

There's a lot that can be blamed on the banks & property developers but consider this question:

would the entire situation have gotten so out of control if the general public was not willing to pay the prices being asked of them?

Gingko

antoobrien wrote: »

You're trying to deflect attention away from the fact that people were being irresponsible with their spending and were willing to look the other way when they knew they shouldn't be getting loans.

People were willing to go to "sub prime" lenders because they couldn't get loans out of the banks.

I'm sure you've heard the same stories I have about falsified pay slips etc being submitted for loans & mortgages.

I'm sure you remember the stories of people buying houses & apartments off the plans, without even viewing a show house.

Do you remember michael lynn - an extreme case I know - the banks didn't follow up on his guarantees and it turns out that he was giving the same property as guarantee for several loans.

There's a lot that can be blamed on the banks & property developers but consider this question:

would the entire situation have gotten so out of control if the general public was not willing to pay the prices being asked of them?

I'm not deflecting anything?? Yes many people were irresponsible with their spending but a great many were not? And austerity measures are been put on these people too. But it does boil down to the banks again!!

"would the entire situation have gotten so out of control if the general public was not willing to pay the prices being asked of them?" What kind of logic is behind that statement in all fairness?? It was sold to them by ruthless people? People just want to live their lives with happiness, dreams and ideas of economic and material wealth are sold to them as being what is needed for happiness by mostly ruthless people.

"In the past they enslaved nations and peoples by the sword now they use debt" 21c imperialism!

antoobrien

Gingko wrote: »

It was sold to them by ruthless people?

Did the people have a choice?

The simple fact of the matter is that many people happily danced up the credit path. They had the choice not to, but for whatever reason didn't.

So yes I see the attempts to absolve the general public of it's share as deflecting the issue.

What moral right to we have to make other people take on their responsibility for their perceived role in the mess when we won't take responsibility for our own actions?

Gingko

antoobrien wrote: »

Did the people have a choice?

The simple fact of the matter is that many people happily danced up the credit path. They had the choice not to, but for whatever reason didn't.

So yes I see the attempts to absolve the general public of it's share as deflecting the issue.

What moral right to we have to make other people take on their responsibility for their perceived role in the mess when we won't take responsibility for our own actions?

Anto you are consistently saying the people and Irish public etc, Once again a certain percent of the population did spend irresponsibly but the great many did not??? Many people did not buy houses and new cars and many people did not see any of the Celtic tiger money anyway?? I don't think your a people person Anto?

Irishgoatman

In this latest debate my vote, at the moment, is with Ginko.

I'm a pensioner (66), I did not borrow or spend wildly during the boom years and nor did any of my family. Personally I know no-one who did yet we are paying the cost!.

Yes certainly others did. They let themselves be led into it by banks and developers.

In my view Ginlo laid it all out very well.

Gingko

Irishgoatman wrote: »

In this latest debate my vote, at the moment, is with Ginko.

I'm a pensioner (66), I did not borrow or spend wildly during the boom years and nor did any of my family. Personally I know no-one who did yet we are paying the cost!.

Yes certainly others did. They let themselves be led into it by banks and developers.

In my view Ginlo laid it all out very well.

My parents are in the same position as yourself. Pensioners that did everything by the book and sensibly. They never overspent either.

ben.schlomo

Irishgoatman wrote: »

In this latest debate my vote, at the moment, is with Ginko.

I'm a pensioner (66), I did not borrow or spend wildly during the boom years and nor did any of my family. Personally I know no-one who did yet we are paying the cost!.

Yes certainly others did. They let themselves be led into it by banks and developers.

In my view Ginlo laid it all out very well.

Yes but you were also part of the silent majority happy to sit back and enjoy the boom while not really asking any questions,no?

Gingko

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Yes but you were also part of the silent majority happy to sit back and enjoy the boom while not really asking any questions,no?

Absolute nonsense!!! The man is 66 for crying out loud? You guys really are missing the point and your human skills are awful.

Irishgoatman

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Yes but you were also part of the silent majority happy to sit back and enjoy the boom while not really asking any questions,no?

Bearing in mind my post, is it possible for you to explain how I sat back and enjoyed the boom?
What questions should I have been asking? and of whom?

As I clearly stated, I borrowed nothing and did not spend wildly.
So how did I enjoy the boom?

To say that I am confused by your post is an understatement.