bbsam;
Speaking of American...you're claiming that "MAYBE IT'S TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN"?!?!? Wow!
Well get to that in a bit. But, before that, I thought I made it clear that, in terms of what they (the "occupiers") have to "offer", their "very existence" is essentially nothing. Also recall that I made a clear distinction between POSITIVE "negotiating" and NEGATIVE "intimidation" and "threatening" via violence.
Take your statement of....
"I thought I had made it clear, but I will try again. OWS and in general the growing populist sentiment in the country has one thing to offer corporations: their very existence. Corporations are man made entities and as such can be regulated as governments so determine"
To a certain extent, that is true...but only to a certain - and very LIMITED - extent! How do you "control" a corporation if, in the process of "controlling", you drive it "out of your arms"? Remember the panic that resulted when it was bandied about that Halliburton was moving its CORPORATE (not "Operational", which proved to be the case) headquarters overseas? Or the presumed MicroSoft threat of moving its place of incorporation to Canada? Or when Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago? And production to RTW South Carolina? What about Cat today, which just closed its Electro-Motive facility in union-bound bound Ontario and is moving production to newly "RTW" Indiana? Again, how are you going to "regulate" - as in corral - human initiative? What type of border is tight enough to contain capital flight?
As for your claim about the "auto industry is doing quite well"....h..m.m.m. Just HOW is it doing "quite well"? On the backs of the SECURED lenders whose LEGITIMATE claims were denied as the government expropriated what was THEIR property and gave it the entity - the UWA - that caused the crisis in the first place? And are those in the industry who were NOT given subsidies "doing [quite as] well" as they would if they were NOT facing subsidized competitors who, by virtue of that subsidy, do NOT have to be as efficient, who do NOT have to be as cost-effective?
Meaning that "yeah", robbers can "do quite well"...as long as we as a society (1) continue to let them rob us, and (2) there's value left in society to rob. Think such a situation like that can continue to exist forever?
Also, I get a kick out of your "their own misguided" comment regarding banks...as if governmental meddling in the creation of entities like Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac, or the FORCING of lenders to grant mortgages to those which the banks, from the get-go, did not want to lend money to was their "own" misguidance. That type of "own misguided" what you're talking about?
A for "Marie", I'm not sure what her "motivation" has to do with anything. As the [foreign] wife of the King of France, of what real significance is her "motivation" in any case? Do you think the "motivation" of Michelle Obama, for instance, is all that significant in terms of OUR economic system? As for "sound and fury", you DO realize what the immediate results of the period of the French Revolution I'm speaking of, aren't you? I.e. - the destruction of much of the country's economic means of existence, the loss of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives, and ultimately to a tryannical government that set a large part of the world on fire, with equal consequent destruction. Seems to me that if that ISN'T "sound and fury" which, in terms of something POSITIVE, "signified nothing", then I don't know what is. After all, Marie didn't tell the Third Estate that they COULDN'T "eat cake", rather she implied with her famous "let them eat cake" comment that it was up to them to PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES, and to QUIT demanding that OTHERS provide FOR them.
Now, if guys like you want to "burn the house to the ground", then you'll have to understand that you'll be dealt with - and deservedly so - as ARSONISTS should be dealt with! No doubt it's one Hell of a lot easier for clowns like you to threaten, and even actually perform, the act of DESTROYING something of value. What's seems impossible for guys like you is actually CONSTRUCTING something of a positive nature for society. But don't think that the rest of us - those of us who ARE capable of making a positive contribution, and who HAVE "constructed" the edifices that society is based upon - are going to stand idly by while would-be thugs and parasites (apparently like you!) try to burn those edifices down.
You want a violent revolution (i.e. - your "Maybe it's time to burn the house down"), then be advised that there are ample counter-revolutionaries available; America is that type of country. And they (the "counters') are NOT going to be gentle with those who try to "burn their house down". Of course, and correspondingly, if you want to be a part of the ANSWER instead of the PROBLEM, be advised that there are many, many who would go along with you as well.
Personally, I will say that any individual who tells me so directly that, in terms of America, "Maybe it's time to burn the house to the ground" I can't help but think of as real SCUM. I have to ask; did you get a kick out the Twin Towers falling, did ya'? The Oklahoma City tragedy really get your jollies going. Believe Pearl Harbor was a nice bonfire? Truthfully, is there any sort of life on this earth LOWER than a piece of filth who suggest that it's time to DESTROY the country that nurtured him? Like "Farley", you "are what you are", I guess.
God help you, 'cause I'm sure he knows that I probably wouldn't.
. 
