Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[WildCat]

No. On the contrary. I demonstrated that it didn't and you failed to acknowledge it.

Actually you admitted there were many demands. Problem is you want to pick and choose which are the "real OWS demands".

There was no single cause.

• Women's rights.
• Minority rights.
• End Vietnam.
• End capitalism.
• Voting rights.
• End the hegemony (South American misadventure).

Got any examples of those wrt Rosa Parks????

The bus strike hurt private businesses. The sanitation strike hurt private business and citizens.

Keep ramming that square peg into a round hole. None of those things are anything like blocking people from leaving or entering a private business.

Evidence? I never claimed that my list was specific.

You keep claiming it's "the OWS demands", and it demonstrably isn't but a tiny fraction of their demands. Many of which are mutually exclusive (such as demanding jobs and also an end to capitalism).

Look at the signs. "Jobs". What on earth do you think that means?

They want to go all Ron Paul and end all government regulations?

Instead of telling me what I'm projecting maybe you could take some time to honestly ask yourself what it is OWS is saying about "jobs"? Perhaps you could go back and look at my bulleted points and think about what I'm actually saying and not projecting your preconceived notions on me.

Right, they want jobs. They also want an end to capitalism, private property, free tuition, investigate chemtrails and 9/11, communist revolution, the right to drum at 3 AM, etc etc etc.

 

[bikerdruid]

Still waiting for the "pass the jobs bill" claim.

if you cannot see the glaring implication of the jobs signs, you cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know, and neither do you. Certainly the Paultard faction is against it.

I don't claim to know. I claim that OWS is upset about jobs.

You claimed this was a demand of OWS.

Evidence? I bulleted what I believed was the message of OWS.

So it's not like Rosa Parks?

I honestly don't know what your point is. Rosa Parks was a woman speaking out like the protestors at OWS are speaking out. Her protest wasn't itself an accomplishment. Same with OWS. To state that OWS hasn't solved anything is to fail to acknowledge that it took many years to solve only some of the many diverse demands made by civil rights protesters.

So, I've no idea what "gotcha" moment you think you've caught me on. The question at hand was a complaint that OWS hasn't solved anything in it's short time. Parks was offered as proof that the civil rights movement accomplished something in a short time. That's demonstrable nonsense.

Some do. Others want communism, others want anarchy. Still others want a new investigation into 9/11. Others want to end capitalism entirely. Still others want to free Gaza.

Yep. But primarily the movement is about the failure of govt to address our most pressing issues of jobs, govt inertia and corruption on wall street.

No, you said that was one of the demands of OWS.

Evidence? If I said that exactly I'll happily retract it. What I remember is that I was bulleting what I thought the message of OWS was.

And there are an infinite variety of ways to do that, Obama's jobs bill being just one of them.

Has the GOP advanced onw of those? Look, without any action on the part of the GOP we only have the Obama jobs bill. OWS wants jobs. Why can't the GOP offer a solution and meet with OWS instead of engaging in the kind of obfuscation and ad hominem that only seeks to demean and belittle OWS?

I could have sworn they wanted to revamp the tax code to encourage new businesses and expansion of existing ones? Got any quotes from the GOP saying "do nothing but wait"?

Got a bill? There's GOP bill attacking women's rights. There's a GOP bill to remind Obama that "In God We Trust" is our motto. Where's the beef? Show me the bill? Otherwise the message I hear is "wait".

Or the jobs bill just adds more debt while the structural deficiencies of the economy go unaddressed.

I don't agree. There are no jobs because there is insufficient demand for products and services that would require jobs because people don't have money. So but put forward a bill.

It's certainly without any overriding messaage or demands...

• Jobs.
• Govt inertia.
• Wall street corruption.

Do you think I can find some signs?

 

[WildCat]

Evidence? I bulleted what I believed was the message of OWS.

There's that word!

I don't do beliefs, I do facts and evidence. Got any?

 

[RandFan]

Got any examples of those wrt Rosa Parks????

??????

Rosa Parks was one person. OWS is comprised of many people. So you want to take a micro view when it comes to Parks and a meta view when it comes to OWS. Tell me, is that consistent?

None of those things are anything like blocking people from leaving or entering a private business.

Yes they are. They are EXACTLY like it. Private people needed buses to go to their private business.

and it demonstrably isn't but a tiny fraction of their demands.

Evidence? And tell me how you control for confirmation bias?

They also want an end to capitalism...

Some, like the civil rights protests.

They also want an end to ....private property

Some, like the civil rights protests.

...free tuition...

Some, like the civil rights protests.

...investigate chemtrails and 9/11, communist revolution, the right to drum at 3 AM, etc etc etc.

Yeah, there were nut jobs during the civil rights era also.

 

[RandFan]

There's that word!

I don't do beliefs, I do facts and evidence. Got any?

Jobs, govt inertia, wall street corruption.

Will signs work?

 

[TruthersLie]

Devastating argument. A real red letter day for JREF. Dude, you so pwned it.

If I need to honestly reply to the utter stupidity of those "ideas" that you posted, then you realllllllllly need to pay more attention.

Just from your partial list we have a minimum wage of $18 an hour, we have a maximum work day of 6 hours per day and a paid 6 week vacation for everyone... Do I really need to explain just how stupid this is?

really? How much do you want to pay for anything in the US that uses minimum wage workers? How much employment do you think will happen at small businesses who would have to pay 2x the current minimum wage?

That isn't even going into the utter stupidity of the REST of that list of ideas.

The entire list is <facepalm> worthy. completely and utterly. But if only, if only the OWS could possibly agree on ANY of them we could have a real policy discussion. got any of that yet? didn't think so.

 

[bikerdruid]

Still waiting for the "pass the jobs bill" claim.

if you cannot see the glaring implication of the jobs signs, you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Jobs, govt inertia, wall street corruption.

Will signs work?

nope.

 

[RandFan]

If I need to honestly reply to the utter stupidity of those "ideas" that you posted, then you realllllllllly need to pay more attention.

Personal attack.

Just from your partial list we have a minimum wage of $18 an hour, we have a maximum work day of 6 hours per day and a paid 6 week vacation for everyone... Do I really need to explain just how stupid this is?

Yeah. I don't necessarily agree but that's not the point. A.) They are not the only demands. B.) You are egnaging in fallacy. Ad hominem poisoning the well. Either I recognize they are wrong or there is something wrong with me. Also, you are begging the question. That's 2 fallacies so far. Let's see if there are any more...

really? How much do you want to pay for anything in the US that uses minimum wage workers? How much employment do you think will happen at small businesses who would have to pay 2x the current minimum wage?

Begging the question. Your premise explicitly implies the conclusion.

That isn't even going into the utter stupidity of the REST of that list of ideas.

Again, you are venturing into ad hominem and begging the question.

The entire list is <facepalm> worthy.

Which isn't an argument. It is arrogant and presumptions.

But if only, if only the OWS could possibly agree on ANY of them we could have a real policy discussion.

Another fallacy. No we can have a discussion abut any of them now.

Another red letter post.

 

[Neally]

OWS is upset by the lack of govt to address serious issues of jobs, shrinking middle class the overall economy and the corruption on wall street.

If that were true, they'd be protesting at or against the white house and congress as did the tea party. The fact that they aren't means either that they are simply about protesting for the sake of protesting as I've mentioned before, or that they are retarded. Probably a bit of both.

 

[Brainster]

Thanks, but to be sure I'm not a liberal.

Which is why I said I was not pointing the finger at you.

"Among the liberals"? I don't deny that there are liberals that are homophobes but homophobia is hardly a liberal hallmark. I don't know of any liberals who are trying to "cure" gays. I don't know of any that call them disordered or degenerate. And I don't know any who are using anti-gay marriage for polemics. How "politicaj correctness" would make someone homophobic is beyond me.

They pretend to be politically correct, but their speech reveals at a minimum, fear of receptive anal sex. How many times have you seen a liberal describe some policy defeat as like being bent over, as being like getting ****** up the ***? And yet, we'll assume that for at least some segment of gay society that is hardly considered a horrible experience, right? So why do liberals describe it as effectively the worst thing that could happen?

 

[Brainster]

While I don't agree with all of them there are some very substantive points for discussion. (partial list to conform to forum rules)

Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

What about those workers who don't want to be unionized?

Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

Well, this would certainly end all the complaints about student loans, as only a small percentage of people would go to college.

Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.

Insane.

Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.

Stupid.

Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.

Question becomes what languages to accept. Do we require that government workers speak Arabic? Vietnamese? Cantonese?

Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

I'm an open borders kind of guy, but I doubt they really have thought this one through. Minimum wage of $18 and you're going to throw open the borders? Say goodbye to Mexico, because nobody's going to be living there.

Create a single-payer, universal health care system.

Sigh. This one seems reasonable compared to the nuttery of the other proposals.

You don't agree with them all, Randfan? Give us a few that you do agree with.

 

[RandFan]

If that were true, they'd be protesting at or against the white house and congress as did the tea party.

I don't think that is true at all. I think the wall street corruption was largely the impetus but the movement has grown.

The fact that they aren't means either that they are simply about protesting for the sake of protesting as I've mentioned before, or that they are retarded. Probably a bit of both.

That says more about you than them.

 

[RandFan]

They pretend to be politically correct, but their speech reveals at a minimum, fear of receptive anal sex. How many times have you seen a liberal describe some policy defeat as like being bent over, as being like getting ****** up the ***? And yet, we'll assume that for at least some segment of gay society that is hardly considered a horrible experience, right? So why do liberals describe it as effectively the worst thing that could happen?

Why do heterosexual males say to other heterosexual males "f' you" or "blow me"? A little odd don't you think?

Actually, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Steven Pinker deals with this extensively in his book "Language The Stuff of Thought". It's not that males who say this are homophobic or closeted gay (what a weird way to be a closeted gay) and really want to have intercourse or oral sex with other men. It's that those words have taken on meanings beyond their face value.

In any event, I find your assertion weak at best. Human nature and statistics would tell us that there are homophobes in all groups. But whatever there is in the liberal camp they pale in comparison to the GOP's obsession with gay sex and the desire to "cure the gays". And it's quite funny that so many anti-gay Republicans keep getting exposed as gay. Which btw, is fine with me if they didn't work so hard to disparage and take away the rights of gays.

 

[RandFan]

What about those workers who don't want to be unionized?

That's why we have the dialectic. I don't want all of the demands. But we need to move the discussion to the left IMO and at the least get those on the right to seriously consider the arguments of those on the left.

Well, this would certainly end all the complaints about student loans, as only a small percentage of people would go to college.

Evidence?

Insane.

Argument by assertion. Also, without a substantive rebuttal it's ad hominem. It's a bit difficult to say you are insane and wrong if you can't argue why it's wrong.

Stupid.

See above.

Question becomes what languages to accept. Do we require that government workers speak Arabic? Vietnamese? Cantonese?

While I'm not an advocate of this point I can say we can and often do accommodate other languages all the time. So, it's simple, currently govt employees who work primarily with Spanish speaking customers speak Spanish. Same with Chinese, etc. It can be done because it is being done.

I'm an open borders kind of guy, but I doubt they really have thought this one through. Minimum wage of $18 and you're going to throw open the borders? Say goodbye to Mexico, because nobody's going to be living there.

It's worthy of discussion. I don't see the issue as black and white. There are trade offs to both immigration policy and minimum wage requirements. I'd like to see a dialog and probably some increase to minimum wage.

...the nuttery of the other proposals.

Presumptuous. Not conducive to a discussion.

You don't agree with them all, Randfan? Give us a few that you do agree with.

If you are seriously interested in a discussion I'd happily tell you. However, given your Dunning-Kruger certainty of your position I'm not sure of the point?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

The direct way of establishing what OWS is about is to go the their website and take note of what issues their large actions (usually marches) have been highlighting. This is the most recent:

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-street-obama-dont-be-big-banks-puppet-/

Numerous investigations by state and federal authorities have demonstrated that banks used illegal procedures to make tens of thousands of foreclosures over the past decade. Rushing to a settlement before the full extent of the fraud is known would be a grave injustice to those who were illegally foreclosed upon and those still struggling to stay in their homes.

“This is a clear, moral issue that cuts to the core of why we occupy,” said Max Berger, an Occupy Wall Street participant helping to plan the event. “Instead of throwing corrupt bankers in jail, the administration is pushing to give them a get-out-of jail-free card.”

Of course, this kind of information is largely ignored in favour of finding the most 'far-out' signs. You can bet that if this march was instead about bringing socialism to the USA, then it would be all over the news and all over this thread.

Here is a report of the march from that bastion of right wing reactionism, the Daily Telegraph:

At the forefront of the march was a giant puppet of US President Barack Obama. The anti-Wall Street movement said in a statement that the reason they were marching against President Obama was "to help expose the looming cash-for-immunity deal between the Obama administration and big banks".

Oh, a giant puppet of Obama eh? Isn't he a socialist? I'm confused.

 

[WildCat]

??????

Rosa Parks was one person.

Correct. But what she did mobilized hundreds of people who distributed thousands of flyers and they organized the bus boycott, which lasted for months until the bus segregation laws were repealed. The protests had a clearly defined goal. Her thousands of supporters didn't go off on tangents or come with their own separate agendas. The movement wasn't hijacked by communists, anarchists, unions, conspiracy theorists, etc., all pushing thier own agendas with no goal at all like OWS has become.

??????OWS is comprised of many people.

As was the bus boycott.

?????? So you want to take a micro view when it comes to Parks and a meta view when it comes to OWS. Tell me, is that consistent?

I take the meta-view both times.

??????Yes they are. They are EXACTLY like it. Private people needed buses to go to their private business.

So? There's other ways to get places. They were punishing the municipal bus sewrvice, not private businesses and their customers and workers.

??????Evidence? And tell me how you control for confirmation bias?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...725l0l6045l20l20l0l1l1l0l275l3489l0.10.8l18l0

like the civil rights protests.
Some, like the civil rights protests.

Some, like the civil rights protests.

Yeah, there were nut jobs during the civil rights era also.

The overwhelming majority of the remaining protestors are the lunatic fringe. If they weren't the numbers would be far higher. I don't think the NYC protests ever drew more than 2,000 people, and the city alone has 8 million people. By contrast, some of the anti-war rallies drew half a million people.

Because they have a thousand wildly varying demands, there's something in it for everyone but very few who agree on any single issue. So anyone can find something to support in it, but that bit isn't enough to get them to show up and stand shoulder to shoulder with the kooks.

 

[Virus]

So in conclusion; when I asked what the movement had accomplished so far, the answer is nothing.

I did see an estimate the Occutard villages have cost taxpayers $8,000,000. That wasn't counting the arsonist who set fire to a building and caused 8 mill in damages.

Funny because that could have been spent on beautification, crime prevention or any number of things that might attract investment and job opportunities.

 

[WildCat]

Jobs, govt inertia, wall street corruption.

That's a small part, yes. What about communist revolution? Chemtrails? Freeing Gaza? Ending aid to Israel? Investigating 9/11? Ending capitalism? free tuition? Forgiveness of debt?

These are also "the OWS demands", yes?

Will signs work?

Of course, I think we can assume the person holding the sign agrees with the sign they're holding.
Here's one demanding bail outs for public schools: http://ph.cdn.photos.upi.com/collec...part-of-global-movement-in-Los-Angeles_35.jpg

Amend Citizens United, campaign finance reform, Health (?) Before Profit, Capitalism is "plunderful": http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...1e0-bfa4-001cc4c03286/4e975eede28d3.image.jpg

Stop the Greed: http://www.harikari.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy-Seattle-stop-greed.jpg

Lots of bitching and moaning, very little in the way of solutions.

 

[WildCat]

The direct way of establishing what OWS is about is to go the their website and take note of what issues their large actions (usually marches) have been highlighting.

Nope, they say so right there: "OccupyWallSt.org is the unofficial de facto online resource for the growing occupation movement happening on Wall Street and around the world."

Do you have a link to the official site?