Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[bookitty]

Spoken like a true propaganda artist... Take an incident that was genuinely repulsive and turn it around into a motto of repression against a grass roots movement. Ignoring all of the wide spread issues that the movement has faced internally. BTW the OWS movement... protesting wall street greed has geared itself to protest and interfere with small business owners and local branches of large corporations, rather than the CEO's that are the subject of the greed they're against.

Do you have anything to support this statement?

 

[Brainster]

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.

Already changed? YES:

The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you have anything to support this statement?

example #1

 

[Ziggurat]

[qimg]http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1231/occupypeppersprayj.jpg[/qimg]

Silly me, I thought you were opposed to this sort of argument by anecdote. I guess that's only selectively true.

 

[RandFan]

Take an incident that was genuinely repulsive and turn it around into a motto of repression against a grass roots movement.

OMG I can't begin to thank you enough. A great big hug and smooch from me to you...

If we could only get those who repeatedly use anecdotes to smear the protestors.

That said, no, there is no single incident and there is evidence that the federal govt is failing to protect the rights of citizens.

 

[Neally]

Do you have anything to support this statement?

Multiple links have been posted in this thread on the economic damage that has been done to local businesses as a result of the occutards. Many small businesses have laid off workers due to a drop in business because people don't want to come around the areas. Others have had to deal with the "gimmie free food" that the OWS people demand and the resulting insults and damage when they are refused. Some businesses have had to relocate and some have considered closing.

 

[RandFan]

Already changed? YES:

I suspect it will vacillate. But even I don't support all of their goals. My point is that it IS having an impact.

From your source.

I don't think the bad poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with wealth inequality. Polling we did in some key swing states earlier this year found overwhelming support for raising taxes on people who make over $150,000 a year. In late September we found that 73% of voters supported the 'Buffett rule' with only 16% opposed. And in October we found that Senators resistant to raising taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year could pay a price at the polls. I don't think any of that has changed- what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street's image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the 'Occupy' than the 'Wall Street.' The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message.

I'm fine with ALL of that including the last 2 statements.

Keep in mind, I'm a fan of capitalism. I don't want anarchy.

I think the strategy will need to shift. We need to build on the momentum and focus on the strengths of what has changed.

Thank you.

 

[Ziggurat]

That said, no, there is no single incident and there is evidence that the federal govt is failing to protect the rights of citizens.

The federal government is also failing to make me a sandwich. And I'm hungry.

For the most part, the federal government shouldn't be involved at all with these protests. If you want to claim that they're failing to do something you think they should be doing, you need to be able to describe what they should be doing (and "protecting rights" doesn't cut it), as well as why.

 

[RandFan]

Multiple links have been posted in this thread on the economic damage that has been done to local businesses as a result of the occutards. Many small businesses have laid off workers due to a drop in business because people don't want to come around the areas. Others have had to deal with the "gimmie free food" that the OWS people demand and the resulting insults and damage when they are refused. Some businesses have had to relocate and some have considered closing.

It's telling that you can't have a discussion without the loaded language and propaganda. I accept your proposition without demanding a source. If we can effect change it will have been worth it. I realize that is a bit arrogant as I'm not the one having to lay off workers nor am I losing business. However, on the other hand my nation has been damaged severely by corruption to the tune of trillions of dollars. Savings and pensions have been wiped out and harm far greater felt by hard working people and small business owners. It's somewhat of a dilemma I agree but in the end it's a no brainier. And I can make that argument without calling anyone retarded.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The federal government is also failing to make me a sandwich. And I'm hungry.

For the most part, the federal government shouldn't be involved at all with these protests. If you want to claim that they're failing to do something you think they should be doing, you need to be able to describe what they should be doing (and "protecting rights" doesn't cut it), as well as why.

I think randfan is including incidents in which protestors were evicted from public parks in accordance with local ordinances and laws in those jurisdictions. I've seen many of those twisted into violations of the first amendment. Incidents where the first amendment right to free speech is conflated with the ability to violate said ordinances. I'm not against outcry for incidents like the pepperspray one with the protestors doing nothing wrong, but other incidents of conflating law enforcement with constitutional rights violations is another matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think randfan is including incidents in which protestors were evicted from public parks in accordance with local ordinances and laws in those jurisdictions. I've seen many of those twisted into violations of the first amendment.

The thing is, even if they were first amendment violations, the federal government shouldn't be proactively stepping in. What's supposed to happen is that the affected individuals sue the state for those violations generally starting in a state court, and if necessary appeal up through the state courts to federal courts. And outside of the courts, the federal government isn't supposed to step in unless the states don't abide by the court rulings. That's how federalism works. And as far as I've seen, we haven't reached anywhere near that point with any of the OWS protests. So if you're right about what he's upset about, then it appears that his complaint is really about the nature of federalism.

 

[Neally]

If we can effect change it will have been worth it.

Ah yes, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. You and bikerdruid are two peas in a pod.

And I can make that argument without calling anyone retarded.

I calls em like I see em.

 

[RandFan]

I think randfan is including incidents in which protestors were evicted from public parks in accordance with local ordinances and laws in those jurisdictions. I've seen many of those twisted into violations of the first amendment. Incidents where the first amendment right to free speech is conflated with the ability to violate said ordinances. I'm not against outcry for incidents like the pepperspray one with the protestors doing nothing wrong, but other incidents of conflating law enforcement with constitutional rights violations is another matter.

There is no such thing as freedom of expression in America. That is silly false idealism. The US has no such ideal. It never has.

I'm interested in the story only to highlight the fact that our vaunted belief in freedom of expression is BS. The Feds are not required to protect anyone. The U.N. is grossly naive. The only difference between the US and China is that in the US people are protected against govt infringement of speech.

And to be sure, the American patriots had no right to conduct their little tea party and to be sure, the protestors of the 60's and 70's did not have the right to break the laws they did. NOTHING could possibly justify civil disobedience.

Bear in mind, the protestors at Tienaman square A.) did not have free speech and B.) Were breaking the law. C.) Were dirty.

 

[Pardalis]

Are they planning on planting pine trees in Zuccotti Park to get rid of the smell?

 

[bookitty]

example #1

The occupiers didn't put up the barricades.

But the concern for small business is nice although I do wish it were more universal. For example, the profits on my little book biz were increasing at an average of 12% a year for 7 years. In 2008, I had the down payment on a small shop and 3 months worth of pay for 3 employees in the bank. Then things got messy, so I put that on hold. Good thing. In 2009, profits stagnated. In 2010, profits fell by about 35%. This year, unless the holiday season magically drops a fat chunk of change on me, profits will be down about 10% from 2010.

This is a direct result of a world-wide financial crisis, a recession, higher tuition at universities, and increased unemployment. The people responsible for driving my once-thriving business into the ground got bailouts and bonuses. I got higher interest rates on the credit card that I can no longer use to buy private libraries. I've used my cash savings instead.

Prior to OWS, if I had complained on this board about the difficulty I've been having in keeping this biz going, I would have been told to suck it up. Now, there's nothing but empathy for the small biz owner.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no such thing as freedom of expression in America. That is silly false idealism. The US has no such ideal. It never has.

Sure, RandFan, sure. That whole first amendment thing, and that giant body of judicial ruling regarding it? Completely irrelevant. Might as well not exist.

Except that it does.

I'm interested in the story only to highlight the fact that our vaunted belief in freedom of expression is BS. The Feds are not required to protect anyone.

Your complaint is with the nature of federalism, not with freedom of expression or lack thereof.

 

[RandFan]

Ah yes, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Is this an argument? A rebuttal? What is your point?

You and bikerdruid are two peas in a pod.

Exactly, except I'm a big fan of capitalism. Oh, and I don't like anarchy. But yeah, when it comes to civil disobedience yeah. I think the harm caused by civil rights protestors was justified. I think the Boston Tea party justified. I think Tiananmen Square justified (even though it failed).

I calls em like I see em.

A man sees what he wants to see.

 

[Kay]

There is no such thing as freedom of expression in America. That is silly false idealism. The US has no such ideal. It never has.

I'm interested in the story only to highlight the fact that our vaunted belief in freedom of expression is BS. The Feds are not required to protect anyone. The U.N. is grossly naive. The only difference between the US and China is that in the US people are protected against govt infringement of speech.

And to be sure, the American patriots had no right to conduct their little tea party and to be sure, the protestors of the 60's and 70's did not have the right to break the laws they did. NOTHING could possibly justify civil disobedience.

As I told someone else on this thread - the protestors have the right to break the law if they find it unjust ( well, I'm not sure what law they find unjust, but whatever). But they also have to accept that they will get arrested for it, otherwise they're just common criminals who think they're above the law. MLK openly stated that.

And I still have no idea how sitting in a park is going to fix this relationship between rich people that you find so repulsive.

And frankly, I couldn't care less about the opinions of the UN on OWS.

 

[Pardalis]

Exactly, except I'm a big fan of capitalism. Oh, and I don't like anarchy.

You wouldn't have been very popular amongst the occupiers.

 

[WildCat]

Oh, I agree he's an idiot, but you are only proving my point. You are engaging in ad hominem.

Because I think anyone worried about a movement that has no discrete message, demands,or goals is an idiot.

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.

Oh, I agree that he's a great salesman. But he's still an idiot.

Could you advance the discussion without ad hominem?

I already have shown, over and over and over again in this thread, that OWS is too far-flung and unfocused to be a factor. In fact, they refuse to even enter the political process. So if frankie boy thinks they're a reason to tremble in gear he's an idiot. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. And until he registers here I'm allowed to call him an idiot.