Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
mike3 said:
I.e. violence. So then it would seem the only way to affect significant reform to the system would require methods that would garner "no sympathy" here, right? In which case, a movement that you'd be "sympathetic" to would also be an ineffective one, and so then what would be the point of it?
Click to expand...

You've pulled a little sleight of hand there. You asked for the most effective means of change and got violence as the answer. That is not to say that violence is the only means of change. Politically legitimate change can happen, but it will only happen if the people want it, and only if they want it long enough (i.e., over the course of a couple of election cycles).
 
WildCat said:
Yes it is! Do you think Ron Paul is in favor of any banking regulations at all? Just because he wouldn't bail them out doesn't mean he's not friendly to them. Hell, he probably thinks the only reason they failed was too much government oversight.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, because Ron Paul is anti-regulation, pro free-market, that makes him friendly to the zombie Too Big to Fail banks, even although if he'd got his way in 2008 they would no longer be with us?

Ron Paul thinks that Fractional Reserve Banking is fraud. He believes the Fed should be abolished, not because they have come down too hard on the poor old banks, but because they have enabled the fraud. Oh, and he thinks that the Fed, as it stands, should be more heavily regulated.
 
mike3 said:
I.e. violence. So then it would seem the only way to affect significant reform to the system would require methods that would garner "no sympathy" here, right? In which case, a movement that you'd be "sympathetic" to would also be an ineffective one, and so then what would be the point of it?

(Or is it that the things you don't like are essentially pointless petty crime? E.g. a rape, which does no good at all.)
Click to expand...
As Brainster pointed out, you're moving the goal posts asking for the most effective, then claiming that the answer is is the only way while simultaneously claiming everything else must be ineffective. Get your argument together and make your point instead of playing troll.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
Ah I see, because Ron Paul is anti-regulation, pro free-market, that makes him friendly to the zombie Too Big to Fail banks, even although if he'd got his way in 2008 they would no longer be with us?

Ron Paul thinks that Fractional Reserve Banking is fraud. He believes the Fed should be abolished, not because they have come down too hard on the poor old banks, but because they have enabled the fraud. Oh, and he thinks that the Fed, as it stands, should be more heavily regulated.
Click to expand...
If by "more heavily regulated" you mean "abolished", you are correct.
 
Ziggurat said:
Evidently bikerdruid doesn't know the definition of the words he uses.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


"""I have a confession to make. At first, I misunderstood Occupy Wall Street.

The first few times I went down to Zuccotti Park, I came away with mixed feelings. I loved the energy and was amazed by the obvious organic appeal of the movement, the way it was growing on its own. But my initial impression was that it would not be taken very seriously by the Citibanks and Goldman Sachs of the world. You could put 50,000 angry protesters on Wall Street, 100,000 even, and Lloyd Blankfein is probably not going to break a sweat. He knows he's not going to wake up tomorrow and see Cornel West or Richard Trumka running the Federal Reserve. He knows modern finance is a giant mechanical parasite that only an expert surgeon can remove. Yell and scream all you want, but he and his fellow financial Frankensteins are the only ones who know how to turn the machine off.

That's what I was thinking during the first few weeks of the protests. But I'm beginning to see another angle. Occupy Wall Street was always about something much bigger than a movement against big banks and modern finance. It's about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. This is a visceral, impassioned, deep-seated rejection of the entire direction of our society, a refusal to take even one more step forward into the shallow commercial abyss of phoniness, short-term calculation, withered idealism and intellectual bankruptcy that American mass society has become. If there is such a thing as going on strike from one's own culture, this is it. And by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it's flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left.

...

But now, I get it. People want to go someplace for at least five minutes where no one is trying to bleed you or sell you something. It may not be a real model for anything, but it's at least a place where people are free to dream of some other way for human beings to get along, beyond auctioned "democracy," tyrannical commerce and the bottom line."""

[my bold - JJ]

'Politics: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the OWS Protests'

by Matt Taibbi
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
None. The tea parties weren't stupid (or naive) enough to believe in all the goodness of humanity... they weren't stupid (or naive) enough to think that having a $5000 Mac computer would just sit out and remain where it was. They weren't stupid (or naive) enough to have illegal protests w/out permits. They weren't stupid (or naive) enough to think that a camp out would change anything. They weren't stupid (or naive) enough to believe that w/out leaders or w/out concrete demands as a group anything would be done. They weren't stupid (or naive) enough to believe that free drugs, free food and jazz fingers would change anything. They weren't stupid (or naive) enough to not turn in troublemakers and agitators to the police.
Click to expand...

'Seattle City Council Supports Occupy Seattle!'

"Seattle now joins such cities as Los Angeles, Buffalo, NY, Victoria, BC, and San Francisco in its support of the Occupy movement. The Council today passed resolution 31337 recognizing and supporting the exercise of First Amendment rights by Occupy Seattle as a fundamental right in the effort to redress economic injustice in America today."

They were smart enough to have a concrete set of demands. They were smart enough to have proper permits for their protests. They were smart enough to make sure that "astroturf" and "fake" individuals were spotlighted and then ignored.
Click to expand...

Extended rant ends, in the hope, perhaps that we won't have noticed that it fails to address my point that, in contrast to the occupations, Tea Party "events" weren't continuous, round-the-clock encampments, open to anybody, in the middle of cities.

So back to my original question. How many women (or men for that matter) were raped at tea party events?
Click to expand...

How is your question not simply curtain-twitchingly irrelevant mud-slinging?
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Unless it's drugs.

Plenty of bleeding going on too. Standard OWS response to violent incidences is to say "Not one of us. Nobody knows who he is. Could have been anyone."

Turns they lied about recent stabbing at Orlando;

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...ndo-protestors-fight-20111114,0,5405963.story
Click to expand...

funny that no one posts here about the other hundreds of stabbings, or murders, or rapes or overdoses anywhere in america, every day, unless they occur at a OWS gathering.
 
bikerdruid said:
funny that no one posts here about the other hundreds of stabbings, or murders, or rapes or overdoses anywhere in america, every day, unless they occur at a OWS gathering.
Click to expand...

Well, we do post here about all the stabbings, murders, rapes, and overdoses that occur at Tea Party gatherings...

...

...

...

<sunglasses>

YEEEAAAHHH
 
JihadJane said:
'Seattle City Council Supports Occupy Seattle!'

"Seattle now joins such cities as Los Angeles, Buffalo, NY, Victoria, BC, and San Francisco in its support of the Occupy movement. The Council today passed resolution 31337 recognizing and supporting the exercise of First Amendment rights by Occupy Seattle as a fundamental right in the effort to redress economic injustice in America today."



Extended rant ends, in the hope, perhaps that we won't have noticed that it fails to address my point that, in contrast to the occupations, Tea Party "events" weren't continuous, round-the-clock encampments, open to anybody, in the middle of cities.



How is your question not simply curtain-twitchingly irrelevant mud-slinging?
Click to expand...

You are still ignoring a simple question. How many rapes, assaults, drug deals, overdoses or any of those events occurred at any tea party rallies? (there were several weekend long rallies IIRC)

How is obamaville oakland, portland going again?
Does this group even have a simple list of grievances documented some place that we can discuss, or is it still just a random collection of individual signs and individual issues?

ETA: having looked over that "resolution" from the city of Seattle, I find it rather amusing.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/n...=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/resny.htm&r=1&f=G

We agree that most of what you have claimed is happening, we use some statistics, and we will say we agree with you, but we WON'T give you a space to set up camp. ROFLMAO... This is a resolution that is meaningless.... more style than substance. Just like all of the OWS meetings and field trips around the country.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
If by "more heavily regulated" you mean "abolished", you are correct.
Click to expand...

I meant exactly what I said. Ideally he'd like it to be abolished, but if it is not abolished then he would like it more heavily regulated. Either action is not an act of goodwill to the zombie TBTFs.
 
Brainster said:
Add slander to the long list of things you don't understand.

Yes, I believe it. It's an admission against self-interest. This guy is clearly an OWS supporter based on the rest of the stuff he says in his post. And yet he finds the claims of a child prostitution ring credible. We know for a fact that some of the other charges are absolutely true; heroin being distributed in the park? Well, there was the little matter of something like four overdoses being reported in the encampment.
Click to expand...

You're lucky to be in the US, Brainster, where the OccuNuts simply steal food from the homeless and OD on their candy-of-choice. At Occupy Vancouver, the dolts are lighting open fires--pretending they are some kind of sacred aboriginal ceremony--and obstructing safety officials from examining or monitoring the site.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Occ...judge+orders+deadline+hits/5683209/story.html

The mayors of Victoria and Vancouver BC are a lot like Quan in Oakland. They think that not sweeping these buffoons out of their encampments directly is going to translate into electoral support on 19-NOV-2011--when municpal elections are mandated.

Instead, the vast majority of the electorate is simply stunned that the police are emasculated by indecision. The day after the mayors are re-elected then they're safe for a few years and they'll bring in the dozer-tanks like they did in Portland.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
I meant exactly what I said. Ideally he'd like it to be abolished, but if it is not abolished then he would like it more heavily regulated. Either action is not an act of goodwill to the zombie TBTFs.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is against the Fed, because he's a loon who wants to go backwards to the gold standard. The only regulation of it he wants is aimed at tieing the hands of the hated Federal Reserve system in order to kill it.

In case you are unaware, the federal reserve banks do not give mortgage loans, auto loans, checking accounts, savings accounts, etc etc. They are not typical banks, and to use Pauls irrational and misguided attempts at destroying the Fed as evidence he wants banking regulation is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom