I actually decided he was an idiot months ago, when Colbert interviewed him on his show. Long before there was an Occupy whatever movement.
It has impact, I guess. But I'll compare it with a movement I'm very familiar with as I used to be a libertarian, the Ron Paul people. Those guys have for better or for worse also changed the dialect, as ending the Federal Reserve, and withdrawal of our influence from across the world are things which are no longer viewed as quite as crazy, for whatever reason. There's also the fact that Paul also had a fairly big role in creating the Tea Party, even if their current manifestation agrees with them.
Depends on what you call "impact".
Oh, I agree he's an idiot, but you are only proving my point. You are engaging in ad hominem. It's poling data I'm interested in. And, FTR, I think he is very smart when it comes to his marketing. Like Bachman and Palin, Gingrich and the rest, I don't think he is a drooling idiot. His stupidity lies in his rhetoric and ideological blindness to bend the facts to the ideology, NOT in his ability to discern sound bites and buzzwords that resonate with the American people. Of that I have little doubt he is quite worth the money his clients pay him.
I'm not sure how you control for your bias when analyzing the issues. I think you are a bit over confident on this one but I don't care. Hey, I like capitalism, a lot. The username RandFan is in deference to Any Rand. I think capitalism is the single greatest boon to advancing the well being of humans in our history. I really do. And I think anarchy naive at best.
It could take years or even a decade or more. I honestly don't know. I was born in 61 and grew up thinking blacks would never hold high office. Hey, it didn't happen in a year. OWS is months old. First you have to agitate, get people's attention. Go back and look at the great big chart I posted. More people agree with OWS than not. That's something. Permanent? Absolute? Not subject to change? NO. But the first step is to raise awareness and that they are doing that is inarguable.
I'd like to comment but I'm not certain as to your point. It seems to be some kind of dichotomy where there can only be an absolute right or wrong. Like, if ending the war in south Vietnam will result in severe consequences then we must keep the war going at all costs. If so then your argument is presumptive for a number of reasons and not very compelling I'm afraid.
I didn't say achieve their goals, I said working toward solutions. Unlike the tea party that created a political movement, OWS hasn't even attempted to create a political force. It's protest for the sake of protest.
It's nothing if they don't try to make changes with that support, and they have failed to do so.
I think that is utter nonsense. And the protests of the 60's were chaotic and often without direction.
Again that's nonsense. Even if it we're true, and it's not I would not give a damn. First we need to get people's attention and focus that attention on the problems. One more time I direct you to the chart I posted. People need to be aware of the corruption and identify and relate with the protestors. That IS happening whether you choose to accept it or not.
Prosecuting Wall Street
Two whistleblowers offer a rare window into the root causes of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Eileen Foster, a former senior executive at Countrywide Financial, and Richard Bowen, a former vice president at Citigroup, tell Steve Kroft the companies ignored their repeated warnings about defective, even fraudulent mortgages. The result, experts say, was a cascading wave of mortgage defaults for which virtually no high-ranking Wall Street executives have been prosecuted.
I don't need to be directed to your meaningless chart again. I've seen it. 57% disagree with them or don't know.
Spoken like a true OWS then, and proving my point - not trying to fix anything actually, just protesting for the sake of protesting.