Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[RandFan]

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

We share a revulsion for the corruption and and incestuous relationship between Wall Street and govt. If Nixon could go to China then I could go to OWS.

 

[WildCat]

It's true. No one has an inalienable fight to freedom of expression. Get over it folks.

Of course you have an inalienable right to freedom of expression. But those rights have to be balanced against the rights of others to use the parks, streets, sidewalks, and other public places. Thus, reasonable time and place restrictions can be imposed, and there is 200 years of case law on this subject. Do you disagree RandFan?

Surely the UN has bigger fish to fry?

 

[Neally]

The occupiers didn't put up the barricades.

That's it? That's your rationale that the OWS are not at fault for the damage done to those businesses? Weak.

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

Highlighting your point that the ends justify the means, hand-waving away the collateral damage.

A man sees what he wants to see.

Works both ways my OWS sympathizer.

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.

But have you seen the chart?? The chart. It's about the chart.

 

[RandFan]

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

And I think that opinion silly.

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

No, not just a great salesman but an individual who has demonstrated an ability to understand how to frame a message based on focus groups.

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.

I don't care if you call him an idiot. You only expose your bias. But given his polling data and past results I'm not personally impressed with your opinion. Given the poll that I posted and the one Brainster posted (and I quoted), I'm very, very happy that the message of corruption between and of govt and wall street is getting through. So what you have shown over and over is in your head. I don't like Luntz but given his track record and your analysis I've got to go with him on this one.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Do you think the growing popularity of e-books has anything to do with it? Hell, my 71 year old father has a Kindle. I don't think the future of brick and mortar book stores is bright no matter what happens to the economy.

 

[Pardalis]

We share a revulsion for the corruption and and incestuous relationship between Wall Street and govt.

I share a revulsion for alcohol with Wahhabists, but you won't see me mix with them.

 

[RandFan]

Of course you have an inalienable right to freedom of expression.

No. B.S. You we're the one to argue against a "principle of free speech" in the case of the reporter being fired. If you take a job then that company can fire you for what you say on your own free time period. It doesn't matter what the speech is.

But those rights have to be balanced against the rights of others to use the parks, streets, sidewalks, and other public places. Thus, reasonable time and place restrictions can be imposed, and there is 200 years of case law on this subject. Do you disagree RandFan?

No I don't disagree but then it has absolutely ZERO to do with my argument and I already conceded the point. Further it ignores our history of embracing civil disobedience. Finally, if we as a nation cared about the principle of free speech we damn sure would ensure the safety of protestors (which was the point of U.N. envoy).

Surely the UN has bigger fish to fry?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving my point.

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

 

[RandFan]

I share a revulsion for alcohol with Wahhabists, but you won't see me mix with them.

You couldn't think of a better example? THAT is the rebuttal to my Nixon goes to China example? I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. B.S. You we're the one to argue against a "principle of free speech" in the case of the reporter being fired. If you take a job then that company can fire you for what you say on your own free time period. It doesn't matter what the speech is.

Evidently you don't know what "free speech" even means. This isn't an example of a violation of free speech.

 

[Pardalis]

You couldn't think of a better example? THAT is the rebuttal to my Nixon goes to China example? I'll leave it at that.

Yep, that's all I got. Hey, it's monday, give me a break!

 

[RandFan]

Yep, that's all I got. Hey, it's monday, give me a break!

Fair enough. And it isn't entirely without a point.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving my point.

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

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

One has to ask... how common are these over the top violations relative to what's happening with OWS internally? You on one hand preach balance in how one approaches solid criticism yet practice something darn near McCarthy'ism on the other.

 

[WildCat]

No. B.S. You we're the one to argue against a "principle of free speech" in the case of the reporter being fired. If you take a job then that company can fire you for what you say on your own free time period. It doesn't matter what the speech is.

Freedom of speech protects you from government censure, certainly not from private censure. Does this really have to be explained to you?

No I don't disagree but then it has absolutely ZERO to do with my argument and I already conceded the point. Further it ignores our history of embracing civil disobedience. Finally, if we as a nation cared about the principle of free speech we damn sure would ensure the safety of protestors (which was the point of U.N. envoy).

So now you have granted yourself sole rights to telling us what the UN guy meant?

 

[RandFan]

One has to ask... how common are these over the top violations relative to what's happening with OWS internally? You on one hand preach balance in how one approaches solid criticism yet practice something darn near McCarthy'ism on the other.

I honestly fail to understand your point. Can you give me an example of where I'm acting like McCarthy? And what do yo mean "internally"? What is "happening"?

 

[RandFan]

Freedom of speech protects you from government censure, certainly not from private censure. Does this really have to be explained to you?

NO THAT'S MY POINT! For crying in the dark you can flip flop from one post to the next. Did you honestly forget what I had said?

...in the US people are protected against govt infringement of speech.

To wit you responded...

Of course you have an inalienable right to freedom of expression.

What is it that you are not getting here? If I have an inalienable right to free speech then my boss can't tell me what I can or cannot say on my own free time. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. By your logic the inalienable right to life means the govt can't kill me but my boss can.

So now you have granted yourself sole rights to telling us what the UN guy meant?

Please to highlight my words where I said "sole rights"? Oh, and it's a non sequitur.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The occupiers didn't put up the barricades.

No, they're just there, and the way they are protesting is contrary to what they preach... The closest thing to a message is the need to crack down on corporate greed, yet they choose instead to sit in public parks intimidating everyone that routinely passes through the areas they're encamped at while not accomplishing anything to forward whatever ideology it is they're sporting. If their beef is with big business the logical step would be to use this grass roots movement to start getting people into political office and effecting the changes they're pushing as the Tea Party has done.

The intimidation aspect isn't as much their ambiguous "message" as it is just the complete lack of organization. The OWS protestors at Zuccoti park had to set up "women only" tents to address allegations of rape incidents.

But the concern for small business is nice although I do wish it were more universal.

Forgetting for a moment that the brick and mortar book shops are partly in decline because of emerging digital technologies, and the contribution of the down sloping markets... this is a bizarre way of putting things. That because the OWS protestors are creating problems for local businesses it somehow brings their plight due to corporate greed to spot light?

That doesn't exactly make sense if you ask me...

 

[theprestige]

We share a revulsion for the corruption and and incestuous relationship between Wall Street and govt. If Nixon could go to China then I could go to OWS.

Nixon could go to China because he was an anti-China hardliner, and therefore other hardliners could trust him to not compromise their anti-China position in negotiations. Someone who was soft on China would not have enjoyed the same level of trust and support from the anti-China faction. That's what the phrase, "only Nixon could go to China" means.

For your analogy to make any sense, you would have to be a proven anti-OWS hardliner. "Only RandFan could go to OWS", because only RandFan's anti-OWS credentials are good enough to ensure that he won't sell out the hardline anti-OWS position when he gets there.

But we know from this thread that the above is absolutely untrue. Your entire participation in this thread has been an attempt to soften, undermine, and counter the hardline anti-OWS position. You have given absolutely no reason at all why the anti-OWS hardliners should trust you to represent their interests to the OWS.

 

[WildCat]

What is it that you are not getting here? If I have an inalienable right to free speech then my boss can't tell me what I can or cannot say on my own free time.

Yes he can, because your inalienable right to free speech has nothing at all to do with your boss.

You keep saying you get it, and then you demonstrate that you don't.

 

[bookitty]

No, they're just there, and the way they are protesting is contrary to what they preach... The closest thing to a message is the need to crack down on corporate greed, yet they choose instead to sit in public parks intimidating everyone that routinely passes through the areas they're encamped at while not accomplishing anything to forward whatever ideology it is they're sporting. If their beef is with big business the logical step would be to use this grass roots movement to start getting people into political office and effecting the changes they're pushing as the Tea Party has done.

The intimidation aspect isn't as much their ambiguous "message" as it is just the complete lack of organization. The OWS protestors at Zuccoti park had to set up "women only" tents to address allegations of rape incidents.



Forgetting for a moment that the brick and mortar book shops are partly in decline because of emerging digital technologies, and the contribution of the down sloping markets... this is a bizarre way of putting things. That because the OWS protestors are creating problems for local businesses it somehow brings their plight due to corporate greed to spot light?

That doesn't exactly make sense if you ask me...

Actually brick and mortar book shops are on the rise. For example, three have opened in LA in the last year. The business model has changed but they're doing OK. My bread and butter is 19th and 20th century illustrated and small press technical - two genres that are not affected by e-books. And here's a crazy thought - maybe I actually know my freaking trade.

The point, which you so glibly glossed over is that, all small businesses are taking a hit and have been for years. Some of the reasons behind that are the basis for what OWS is protesting. You can't suddenly cry crocodile tears for 21 wait-staff affected by a short-term issue when you've been passionate defending the ideas that caused a recession which impacted everyone at that pay-scale in the long-term.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I have an inalienable right to free speech then my boss can't tell me what I can or cannot say on my own free time. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. By your logic the inalienable right to life means the govt can't kill me but my boss can.

No, RandFan. You have an inalienable right to free speech. What you do not have is an inalienable right to your job. And it is your job, NOT your free speech, which your boss is actually able to take away from you. If you choose to give up your speech in order to get or keep a job, well, you can do that. But it's your choice. Even in this scenario, your boss is not actually forcing you to not speak. And according to this logic, your boss could not in fact kill you, since you DO have a right to life. He might be able to fire you for not committing suicide, but, well, a boss that tries that won't stay in business very long.