Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
The powers that be don't want a discussion. Sit down, shut up, and accept what the rich allow you to have and be thankful.

Click to expand...

I agree with this video... about 80%! The guy (Jesse I believe is his name) raises some thought-provoking discussion. However, the part where he discusses living standards decreasing while the wealthiest people have it better than ever is a rather bold statement. What does he mean by "better than ever"? What living standards does he refer to?

And although I get a bad taste in the back of my mouth with those who criticize the occupy movement, I also get a bad taste when the phrase "we're the other 99%" gets thrown around. Although I understand there might be an emotional trigger behind the "99%" statement, it's somewhat of a false representation of who agrees and who stands with the occupy movement.
 
dc1971 said:
I agree with this video... about 80%! The guy (Jesse I believe is his name) raises some thought-provoking discussion. However, the part where he discusses living standards decreasing while the wealthiest people have it better than ever is a rather bold statement. What does he mean by "better than ever"? What living standards does he refer to?
Click to expand...
Fair point. I would not have said "living standard" but "wealth" which is demonstrably true.
 
RandFan said:
Fair point. I would not have said "living standard" but "wealth" which is demonstrably true.
Click to expand...

Then again, Jesse is engaged in a news interview. He has to make his point as quickly yet as to the point as he can. It's not a time or a place to break out the chalkboard and pencils!
 
dc1971 said:
Then again, Jesse is engaged in a news interview. He has to make his point as quickly yet as to the point as he can. It's not a time or a place to break out the chalkboard and pencils!
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Santa Cruz Police Chief has a go at Occutards that broke into building and barricaded themselves in.

The sense of entitlement and disregard for the law is appalling. To say the least, it detracts from whatever their initial message was to have such an escalation of action. Some were quoted in media outlets showing their willingness to be arrested and their lack of interest in negotiation. Others were shown harassing the media or police that were there to speak to them. No longer can we trust that their intentions are purely political protest or other reasonably protected First Amendment actions. We witnessed anarchists, like those involved in the May Day riots, openly participating in the initial takeover and saw some quoted that were willing to face any sort of police action in order to defend their "right" to illegal takeover of the building.
Click to expand...

http://santacruzpolice.blogspot.com/2011/12/75-river-street-takeover-has-ended.html?m=1
 
Last edited:
...in order to defend their "right" to illegal takeover of the building.
Click to expand...
It's like those bastards that illegally threw the tea overboard in Boston. One thing is for sure, the founding fathers never wanted Americans to ever break the law. The law is the most important thing we have. More important than freedom itself.

"The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

Then again perhaps seizing buildings would be a better start.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
It's like those bastards that illegally threw the tea overboard in Boston. One thing is for sure, the founding fathers never wanted Americans to ever break the law. The law is the most important thing we have. More important than freedom itself.

"The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

Then again perhaps seizing buildings would be a better start.
Click to expand...
So now it's not about passing a jobs bill, it's about the right to squat?
 
WildCat said:
So now it's not about passing a jobs bill, it's about the right to squat?
Click to expand...
No. It's about bringing attention to the problems of the economy and the corrupt and incestuous relationship between the rich and powerful and the Democrats and Republicans that are in their employ.
 
RandFan said:
No. It's about bringing attention to the problems of the economy and the corrupt and incestuous relationship between the rich and powerful and the Democrats and Republicans that are in their employ.
Click to expand...
And how does squatting illustrate that problem, or bring attention to it?

Heh, Occupy Santa Cruz claims on their facebook page that this wasn't an official action of theirs... http://www.facebook.com/OccupySantaCruz
Again, the 75 River St. occupation was NOT an action of the Occupy Santa Cruz general assembly, nor even brought to the GA for consideration. Nevertheless, their struggle is of great interest to many among us and in the community at large.
Click to expand...
And the people who did do the squatting claimed their goal was to "show that through courage, determination, and action, we the disenfranchised can seize our dreams".
http://75river.tumblr.com/post/13723925735/75river-a-victory-for-what-will-be

Whatever that means.
 
WildCat said:
And how does squatting illustrate that problem, or bring attention to it?
Click to expand...
The same way the sit ins of the 60's brought attention to all of the many problems of the 60s. Most important is to wake people up and get them to ask what's going on.

In any event, Frank Luntz admits that it's working. His basis for that is his polling. I find your question bizarre but it really doesn't matter. It's working.
 
How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
Click to expand...
Thanks Frank.
 
RandFan said:
The same way the sit ins of the 60's brought attention to all of the many problems of the 60s. Most important is to wake people up and get them to ask what's going on.

In any event, Frank Luntz admits that it's working. His basis for that is his polling. I find your question bizarre but it really doesn't matter. It's working.
Click to expand...
Because no one knew about any of this before!

And Frank Luntz is an idiot, I'm amazed at how some people can make a living. It's the dumb coaching the dumber. Only in America! :p
 
WildCat said:
Because no one knew about any of this before!

And Frank Luntz is an idiot, I'm amazed at how some people can make a living. It's the dumb coaching the dumber. Only in America! :p
Click to expand...
Yes, if you don't like something simply attack it. Hey, let's assume you are right, do you honestly believe that OWS is having zero impact? Really?
 
RandFan said:
The same way the sit ins of the 60's brought attention to all of the many problems of the 60s. Most important is to wake people up and get them to ask what's going on.

In any event, Frank Luntz admits that it's working. His basis for that is his polling. I find your question bizarre but it really doesn't matter. It's working.
Click to expand...

But the sit-ins directly dealt with the problem. Can't sit at a lunch counter? Do it anyways, and show how getting arrested for it is bad.

How does sitting in some building address the problems of the rich having too much?
 
Kay said:
But the sit-ins directly dealt with the problem. Can't sit at a lunch counter? Do it anyways, and show how getting arrested for it is bad.
Click to expand...
They didn't just sit in at lunch counters. The did so at universities. And they protested and agitated wherever it would get attention. Ever hear of Kent State?

How does sitting in some building address the problems of the rich having too much?
Click to expand...
I'll ask you the same question I asked WC, do you honestly think it is having zero impact? Why are politicians even commenting on it?
 
Last edited:
Kay said:
How does sitting in some building address the problems of the rich having too much?
Click to expand...
How did the protestors in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya address their problems? Tienanmen square? Again, your question is bizarre given history. By that logic people should never protest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom