|
lol this thread is the best place to stop on TL for a laugh. So much melodrama and over the top exaggerations.
People lawfully asked by the police to leave an area = Censorship!
People getting arrested for refusing to leave = Peaceful protesters beaten by the police!
People holding signs and speaking in undefined platitudes = A Revolution!
Americans want so badly to be considered victims while half the planet would give a left nut to come here. The system is so unjust to these well fed over educated youth who have the time and the means to play bongo drums in the midst of productive citizens. The rebels without a cause. We are asked to not block the street? SHAME ON YOU!
It's all a joke...
|
On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch.
Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically.
Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers.
The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule.
|
Hahah another funny news
Occupy Wall Street Moves To Paulson's House
Oct 11 2011 | 2:47pm ET
John Paulson has some unwelcome visitors at his Upper East Side home.
The protestors who have crowded New York's financial district for weeks made their way north today on a tour of the homes of some of the city's billionaires, including the Paulson & Co. founder. The NYC Billionaires Walking Tour, sponsored by Occupy Wall Street, began at 12:30 with plans to visit the city homes of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch.
"Wanna 'see how the 1% lives'?" the organization's Facebook invitation reads. "Then join us on a walking tour of the homes of some of the bank and corporate executives that don't pay taxes, cut jobs, engaged in mortgage fraud, tanked our economy… all while giving themselves record-setting bonuses!"
As they walked through the streets of the Upper East Side, the protectors chanted, "We are the 99%" and "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out."
The march was sparked by the impending lapse of New York state's 2% millionaire tax. About 450 people took part.
The march coincided with an endorsement, of sorts, from hedge fund manager James Chanos for the OWS protests.
"New York is so finance-centric that people here underappreciate the reaction of the rest of the country," the Kynikos Associates chief told Bloomberg News, warning that it would be a mistake to underestimate OWS.
"People are angry, they feel the game is rigged, that they didn't get a fair shake."
http://www.finalternatives.com/node/18361?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: Finalternatives (FINalternatives)
|
On October 12 2011 06:37 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers. The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule.
Congratulations. You have no clue as to what the tea party is or how came it about. Ignoring the rest of your post, I've bolded the most critical fallacy. The tea party wasn't "infiltrated" by "right wing" politicians. The tea party produced, supported, and elected these "right wing" politicians. In fact, no one person or entity has yet to capture or commandeer the tea party movement, much to the chagrin of the republican establishment.
|
On October 12 2011 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol this thread is the best place to stop on TL for a laugh. So much melodrama and over the top exaggerations.
People lawfully asked by the police to leave an area = Censorship!
People getting arrested for refusing to leave = Peaceful protesters beaten by the police!
People holding signs and speaking in undefined platitudes = A Revolution!
Americans want so badly to be considered victims while half the planet would give a left nut to come here. The system is so unjust to these well fed over educated youth who have the time and the means to play bongo drums in the midst of productive citizens. The rebels without a cause. We are asked to not block the street? SHAME ON YOU!
It's all a joke...
But isn't that the beauty of the United States of America? It's to be able to protest and stand up for what you believe in. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people would want to move to America just to have that right. I agree with you that we have it good compared to many other countries and I see your point about that people may have over-exaggerated the protests.
However, I believe that the people protesting on Wall Street have a noble goal behind it, or at least did before bandwagoners decided to corrupt/blur the message. It was to protest against the giant corporation that control the country. They have more power and influence over the government than the common people and I find it relieving that the common people are making a stand.
|
On October 12 2011 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 DrainX wrote:On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers. The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule. Congratulations. You have no clue as to what the tea party is or how came it about. Ignoring the rest of your post, I've bolded the most critical fallacy. The tea party wasn't "infiltrated" by "right wing" politicians. The tea party produced, supported, and elected these "right wing" politicians. In fact, no one person or entity has yet to capture or commandeer the tea party movement, much to the chagrin of the republican establishment.
I told you how it came about. As a grass roots movement. Are you disagreeing with that? And they haven't been hijacked? I guess you and Ron Paul the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement disagree on that point then. Or maybe Ron Paul happily stands side by side with Michele Bachmann. I guess the tea party just happened to change their message as they gained support by Fox News and the Koch brothers and while they infiltrated the republican party then. It could have been a coincidence.
I don't know why I am responding to you. You don't seem to address any of the point and facts brought up against anything you say anyway. I guess you dropped your claim that social mobility was higher in the US than it was in the EU? (The opposite is actually true) You stopped talking about it as soon as I linked to facts.
|
On October 12 2011 06:58 hoganftw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol this thread is the best place to stop on TL for a laugh. So much melodrama and over the top exaggerations.
People lawfully asked by the police to leave an area = Censorship!
People getting arrested for refusing to leave = Peaceful protesters beaten by the police!
People holding signs and speaking in undefined platitudes = A Revolution!
Americans want so badly to be considered victims while half the planet would give a left nut to come here. The system is so unjust to these well fed over educated youth who have the time and the means to play bongo drums in the midst of productive citizens. The rebels without a cause. We are asked to not block the street? SHAME ON YOU!
It's all a joke... But isn't that the beauty of the United States of America? It's to be able to protest and stand up for what you believe in. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people would want to move to America just to have that right. I agree with you that we have it good compared to many other countries and I see your point about that people may have over-exaggerated the protests. However, I believe that the people protesting on Wall Street have a noble goal behind it, or at least did before bandwagoners decided to corrupt/blur the message. It was to protest against the giant corporation that control the country. They have more power and influence over the government than the common people and I find it relieving that the common people are making a stand.
I agree that corporations and government getting in bed together is a huge problem and always has been... But the guilty party in this relationship is the government. They are the ones we give the power and the responsibility to. We all know corporations are designed to make money, but politicians are supposed to represent the people. If someone takes a bribe, you blame the person who took the bribe more than the one who offered it.
My point is, these people are protesting wall street instead of washington or the federal reserve. They are too blinded by their populist anti-rich mentality to see where the change needs to occur. If they really want to change things they should find or offer up political candidates that adhere to their beliefs. That's why the Tea Party has become a huge force and topic in the current political arena: because they have actually ELECTED people to positions of power, even if some of those people hijacked or abused the original movement (cough Bachman cough).
Trying to get police to beat you up to make yourself look like an artificial victim is just sad and slightly funny. It's like the mods policy on TL: "You want to be a martyr? Ok, we can accomodate you." 
|
Yes, the tea party is a grass roots movement.
No, the tea party has not been hijacked by anyone. Who do you think has hijacked it?
Bachmann? If this is true, where's her popular support? It's not there.
Palin? Same.
How about the big money republicans? Clearly not them either. Big republican money (establishment republicans) support Romney or Perry. Neither of them have been able to harness the tea party to this point. Perry did briefly, but clearly that support has abandoned him.
So again, who has co-opted the tea party movement? Really, you need look no farther than Herman Cain to see that, as of now, no one has.
|
I agree that corporations and government getting in bed together is a huge problem and always has been... But the guilty party in this relationship is the government. They are the ones we give the power and the responsibility to. We all know corporations are designed to make money, but politicians are supposed to represent the people. If someone takes a bribe, you blame the person who took the bribe more than the one who offered it. My point is, these people are protesting wall street instead of washington or the federal reserve. They are too blinded by their populist anti-rich mentality to see where the change needs to occur. If they really want to change things they should find or offer up political candidates that adhere to their beliefs. That's why the Tea Party has become a huge force and topic in the current political arena: because they have actually ELECTED people to positions of power, even if some of those people hijacked or abused the original movement (cough Bachman cough). Trying to get police to beat you up to make yourself look like an artificial victim is just sad and slightly funny. It's like the mods policy on TL: "You want to be a martyr? Ok, we can accomodate you."
That's a really good point. It probably would be a better idea to protest near the Federal Reserve or in Washington DC, but I don't think Wall Street was a terrible move. It's gathering up some momentum nationwide with all these protests elsewhere and I think it will eventually reach those areas.
|
These occupy protests are the result of angry people blaming the super wealthy on their problems. Not saying they are unimportant or will have no impact, but the majority of the slogans I've heard focus on buzz phrases and don't really highlight concrete problems.
I've heard that the wealthy steal from the middle class, which I just don't understand.
I've heard banks fund wars, another statement that baffles me
I've heard that the top 1% pay no taxes, which just simply isn't true
I've heard that banks cause unemployment, which is strange because my girlfriend is currently working at a bank
I've heard banks steal homes, which doesn't make sense because banks aren't meant to be charities that give people free money to buy a house (I hate to sound cruel on this point, but banks don't have the resources to give people money to buy homes, and sometimes repossession is the only alternative)
I've heard "people are hurting and it's time to reform what's going on in Washington" which is just about as vague as the group's mission statement
I've seen a sign that said "if you don't know what's going on or what we're talking about turn off the news and tune into the movement" (It seems even the protestors know who their target demographic is.)
then there's just all the signs that say "I am the 99%" and "people over profit" and other equally meaningless slogans.
If these people want to be taken seriously they need an educated backbone that can formulate a clear message. Right now their message is so skewed by misinformation and unbacked claims it's impossible to figure out why they're protesting in the first place
|
On October 12 2011 07:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:58 hoganftw wrote:On October 12 2011 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol this thread is the best place to stop on TL for a laugh. So much melodrama and over the top exaggerations.
People lawfully asked by the police to leave an area = Censorship!
People getting arrested for refusing to leave = Peaceful protesters beaten by the police!
People holding signs and speaking in undefined platitudes = A Revolution!
Americans want so badly to be considered victims while half the planet would give a left nut to come here. The system is so unjust to these well fed over educated youth who have the time and the means to play bongo drums in the midst of productive citizens. The rebels without a cause. We are asked to not block the street? SHAME ON YOU!
It's all a joke... But isn't that the beauty of the United States of America? It's to be able to protest and stand up for what you believe in. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people would want to move to America just to have that right. I agree with you that we have it good compared to many other countries and I see your point about that people may have over-exaggerated the protests. However, I believe that the people protesting on Wall Street have a noble goal behind it, or at least did before bandwagoners decided to corrupt/blur the message. It was to protest against the giant corporation that control the country. They have more power and influence over the government than the common people and I find it relieving that the common people are making a stand. I agree that corporations and government getting in bed together is a huge problem and always has been... But the guilty party in this relationship is the government. They are the ones we give the power and the responsibility to. We all know corporations are designed to make money, but politicians are supposed to represent the people. If someone takes a bribe, you blame the person who took the bribe more than the one who offered it. My point is, these people are protesting wall street instead of washington or the federal reserve. They are too blinded by their populist anti-rich mentality to see where the change needs to occur. If they really want to change things they should find or offer up political candidates that adhere to their beliefs. That's why the Tea Party has become a huge force and topic in the current political arena: because they have actually ELECTED people to positions of power, even if some of those people hijacked or abused the original movement (cough Bachman cough). Trying to get police to beat you up to make yourself look like an artificial victim is just sad and slightly funny. It's like the mods policy on TL: "You want to be a martyr? Ok, we can accomodate you."
It's because Wall St. is where everyone made their money. And the group is aware of the problem with our politicians. They want to get money out of politics. Protests are popping up all over the country. I wouldn't read too much into the location.
|
On October 12 2011 07:33 Tewks44 wrote:
These occupy protests are the result of angry people blaming the super wealthy on their problems. Not saying they are unimportant or will have no impact, but the majority of the slogans I've heard focus on buzz phrases and don't really highlight concrete problems.
I've heard that the wealthy steal from the middle class, which I just don't understand.
I've heard banks fund wars, another statement that baffles me
I've heard that the top 1% pay no taxes, which just simply isn't true
I've heard that banks cause unemployment, which is strange because my girlfriend is currently working at a bank
I've heard banks steal homes, which doesn't make sense because banks aren't meant to be charities that give people free money to buy a house (I hate to sound cruel on this point, but banks don't have the resources to give people money to buy homes, and sometimes repossession is the only alternative)
I've heard "people are hurting and it's time to reform what's going on in Washington" which is just about as vague as the group's mission statement
I've seen a sign that said "if you don't know what's going on or what we're talking about turn off the news and tune into the movement" (It seems even the protestors know who their target demographic is.)
then there's just all the signs that say "I am the 99%" and "people over profit" and other equally meaningless slogans.
If these people want to be taken seriously they need an educated backbone that can formulate a clear message. Right now their message is so skewed by misinformation and unbacked claims it's impossible to figure out why they're protesting in the first place
The middle class is upset because right now, the 1% control this country. They control about 35% percent of all the wealth. They give huge donations to politicians to get them elected. These politicians will not vote out of party lines, because they might lose all their donations. As you can see, Congress is incapable of acting right now. The super wealthy also have everything set up in their favor. Right now they pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. Investments are taxed at a really low rate, and that's how they make most of their money. Goldman Sachs basically destroyed the housing market all in the name of greed. After the banks got bailed out, the continued to lay off workers, and add on ridiculous fees while the CEOs took home record bonuses, all in the name of greed. The whole system is rigged towards the super wealthy and the middle class are sick of it, as they should be.
I suggest you get educated before you make such claims, good sir!
|
Whether you consider the Tea Party to have been coopted or not probably comes down to whether you consider the movement to have begun in 2007 (when it actually started) or 2009 (when it became a large national movement). In 2007/08 it was a libertarian movement that started off as a general support for Ron Paul in Texas and eventually spread among conservatives opposing TARP before Obama's election; now it represents the most conservative group of Republicans including social conservatism and willingness to spend large amounts of money on the warfare state... the latter view perhaps held less consistently than the anti-tax, anti-immigrant, and socially conservative views.
|
|
|
On October 12 2011 07:33 Tewks44 wrote:
These occupy protests are the result of angry people blaming the super wealthy on their problems. Not saying they are unimportant or will have no impact, but the majority of the slogans I've heard focus on buzz phrases and don't really highlight concrete problems.
I've heard that the wealthy steal from the middle class, which I just don't understand.
I've heard banks fund wars, another statement that baffles me
I've heard that the top 1% pay no taxes, which just simply isn't true
I've heard that banks cause unemployment, which is strange because my girlfriend is currently working at a bank
I've heard banks steal homes, which doesn't make sense because banks aren't meant to be charities that give people free money to buy a house (I hate to sound cruel on this point, but banks don't have the resources to give people money to buy homes, and sometimes repossession is the only alternative)
I've heard "people are hurting and it's time to reform what's going on in Washington" which is just about as vague as the group's mission statement
I've seen a sign that said "if you don't know what's going on or what we're talking about turn off the news and tune into the movement" (It seems even the protestors know who their target demographic is.)
then there's just all the signs that say "I am the 99%" and "people over profit" and other equally meaningless slogans.
If these people want to be taken seriously they need an educated backbone that can formulate a clear message. Right now their message is so skewed by misinformation and unbacked claims it's impossible to figure out why they're protesting in the first place
Very good points, however a few can be understood relatively fast.
The banks funding war seems very far stretched and hysterical.
The top 1 % earners actually pays less taxes percentually than, hold on... The rest of top 10 % earners, because of several more or less known tax-issues. The 90 % pay less in taxes percentually. So the statement that the rich are paying less than middle class is not true for 90% of the 99% (see the irony! :p) , but points to a specific issue. (Someone posted a good source earlier.)
The banks causing unemployment sounds like their current - and understandeable, might I add - reluctance against giving new loans with medium-high risk. So it is an indirect statement, but rather specific issue.
The banks stealing homes is of course untrue, but a lot of less fortunate people fell for the 0 % for a year loans and other insanely risky financial loans. Boom, a year later the bank has cheated itself of the money because of bad advice to the costumers and the people are going broke, loosing house without paying what they owe. People blame the bad advice from the banks on themself taking those loans. So indirectly it has some truth to it. (several sources earlier)
People are hurting and it's time to reform what's going on in Washington, is more a statement on them not liking the economic actions of the government that caused the crisis and the way they try to solve it. Also implies that candidates being bought brings issues about pluralism to the table.
Specifying the demands in this case, will take the politicians to be willing to discuss the issues with the demonstraters and the willingness to make compromises for both sides.
Removing most of the population from any serious input on topics in the governemt because they are not experts on the specific topic is not a good decision.
|
On October 12 2011 06:37 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers. The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule.
It is hard for me to think that they are against the Democrats when their signs are basically the Democratic playbook. I see the Chicago 99%ers every day on my way to school and the most common signs play off one of these general themes:
"We are the 99%" Doesn't really mean that much when it comes to a message.
"Tax the rich" Ok...Democratic playbook since Carter at least.
"Stop Corporate Greed" Demonizing "big X" is a Democratic ploy whether it is big Wall Street, big oil, or otherwise.
"Stop fighting wars" ...seeing the theme yet?
"Random Union Sign" Unions are the Democrat's infrastructure and biggest political contributors.
All of those are Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's opinions just not couched in political doubletalk.
|
do u guys think something good will come after all of this is done? i mean like a good change on the economy or something like that
|
On October 12 2011 08:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 DrainX wrote:On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers. The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule. It is hard for me to think that they are against the Democrats when their signs are basically the Democratic playbook. I see the Chicago 99%ers every day on my way to school and the most common signs play off one of these general themes: "We are the 99%" Doesn't really mean that much when it comes to a message. "Tax the rich" Ok...Democratic playbook since Carter at least. "Stop Corporate Greed" Demonizing "big X" is a Democratic ploy whether it is big Wall Street, big oil, or otherwise. "Stop fighting wars" ...seeing the theme yet? "Random Union Sign" Unions are the Democrat's infrastructure and biggest political contributors. All of those are Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's opinions just not couched in political doubletalk.
Taxes on the rich haven't gone up since Obama got into office. Obamas campaign was to a large extent payed by financial institutions. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan. It might be the perception of some people that democrats want to tax the rich, go hard on corporations and end wars but they aren't very much unlike the republicans when it comes to actions. Both parties are very much pro Wall Street and pro Business.
|
The people on the streets are far more educated and politically astute than the critics in this thread can imagine. If you don't get what the movement is about, put down your Xbox and SC2 and get out on the streets and talk to your fellow citizens who have been fighting the good fight for years. There is a world that exists apart from your immediate reality and you're not going to learn anything from occasionally tuning in to CNN or browsing Yahoo! News or gossiping with your dummy friends on Facebook.
As for an unclear message, two responses:
(1) There are many messages, many "demands", many perspectives -- but the organizers of these events are not interested in specifics like "get so-and-so elected to office" or "pass this legislation." Why not? Because they understand that our political problems go far deeper than just "getting honest people into office" or asking Congress to pass legislation. For deeper analysis, you'd have to catch up on a lot of political history, more than I can write in this single paragraph.
(2) If you don't get the message, then either you got a poorly-articulated or misrepresented (the big press is all over this) "demand," or the message /was/ clearly articulated and you just didn't understand it's basis & assumed facts. I find that when I'm trying to get an understanding of politics I'm not familiar with, especially opposition, you cannot listen to soundbites or campaign-related rhetoric or a digest of any sort. You need primary sources. The best way to get an understanding is to listen to the facts and analysis as they are genuinely presented. In the case of OWS, you should read over the General Assembly Minutes to find out precisely what it is they are saying day-by-day.
I quoted "demands" above because these people aren't asking for a handout from the system (if that were the case we would just need to get some bills passed through Congress, right?). Poor economic conditions certainly helped spark this movement, but these people are now working together to try and figure out ways that they can reform the system & power so that they are independent and represented in a grassroots fashion, because they have lost faith in the old system and established power to watch their backs.
On October 12 2011 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 06:37 DrainX wrote:On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote:
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. Completely incorrect. The Occupy Wall Street is as much against the democrats as they are against the republicans. Some democrats on the left might agree with their cause but they as a whole would never ally with the democrats as long as they remain in the position they are now politically. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements started as grassroots movements. The Tea Party was however quickly infiltrated by far right wing republicans. Their message was originally one close to libertarian but it was soon changed into a religious, homophobic, xenophobic movement. It was quickly picked up and supported by media giants such as Fox News also gained financial support from wealthy right wingers. It was soon a top-down movement advertised by Fox news and payed for by rich right wingers. The Occupy Wall Street have instead stayed grass roots and instead of growing thanks to media support and exposure they have grown despite media silence and ridicule. Congratulations. You have no clue as to what the tea party is or how came it about. Ignoring the rest of your post, I've bolded the most critical fallacy. The tea party wasn't "infiltrated" by "right wing" politicians. The tea party produced, supported, and elected these "right wing" politicians. In fact, no one person or entity has yet to capture or commandeer the tea party movement, much to the chagrin of the republican establishment.
I think what actually happened (and DrainX distorted) is that the TeaParty emerged as individuals demonstrating their disapproval of XYZ, but that they only attracted the darling attention of big news networks because (1) right-wing $ was happy to promote and help organize events, (2) that $ got speakers at public gatherings who promote their own race for office, their own politics, and (3) those persons that got elected as a so-called "Tea Party Caucus" leveraged their House seats to swing the Republican party toward a more libertarian economic agenda, as desired by the $ that helped get them the swing votes. Folks on the left are no less vulnerable to established Democrats trying to show up at rallies and giving a motivational speech, and maybe for a moment it looks like this corrupt Democrat is actually on your side, but they're playing politics and trying to appeal to the radical left.
The Tea Party's social politics, accusations of racism, etc., are rightfully labelled as mischaracterizations in my opinion (not to dismiss radical individuals who get camera attention for being inflammatory), because the people that drive this Caucus and can direct a constituency of right-wing voters are primarily interested in economic policy that benefits their investment, not marriage/gun/racist bullshit that makes some scared people feel comfortable about their culture.
As for the XYZ, again you have the obvious fact that poor economic conditions (especially in rural "Red State" America where good jobs are come-and-go scarce) are going to spur political activism, wherever you come from. There are folks on the left that loath the Tea Party because of cultural divisions. There are folks on the right that hate liberal ivy-league pot-smoking hippies from California and think the OWS kids should shut up and get a job. But the underlying truth is that they're both pissed off about similar issues (however they may be perceived), and there are plenty of independent, right, left, and center persons, libertarian to socialist, who agree that we have serious political and economic problems. There is plenty of room to debate the HOW we fix it (maybe you think libertarian economic ideals are both fair and effective, maybe someone else thinks that welfare capitalism is great, or maybe you're a communist) but the point is that the debate needs to _happen_ (OWS may be left-biased, but it appears to have the most open platform for individual contribution you will find anywhere, and they are trying their best not to get soaked up by any partisan interests). The only people who don't want there to be any debate at all are the people in established power -- and /you/, my lowly TL reader, are not one of them.
|
On September 18 2011 09:41 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:07 stork4ever wrote:
You don't go to jail if you protest. You go to jail if you violate a law and if you start messing with the police. They NYPD is probably happier that this kind of protest is going on, versus the other crazy protest/guy in megaphone that occurs all the time in NYC.
The "people with the guns" (police/soldier) protects/up hold the constitution. It is not perfect and there are lawsuits all the time testing the limits/meaning of our constitution. There is recourse if you feel your rights were taken away. History says otherwise, here's a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootingsThe "people with the guns" follow orders, that is all. They WILL completely ignore your rights when ordered to. The constitution clearly states that only congress can declare war, last time that happened was WWII, how many wars have we been in since? The supreme court ruled in the 70's that a warrant must be obtained to wire tap, congress over ruled that with the patriot act. Which they don't actually have the power to do, but guess what, they did it anyway. Freedom of expression and speech are also in the constitution, but our government sensors television, which is also a direct violation of the constitution. The constitution guarantees you the right to a lawyer and a trial, but if you are labeled an enemy combatant you are denied all of these rights and they've done it to at least one American citizen already. By the way, there is no criteria for being labeled an "enemy combatant" our government can give this label to whomever they choose and are not required to disclose a reason. I totally agree that protests are needed in this country, but they really need a greater number of people to do it. When the Iraq war started we saw one of the biggest anti-war protests in world history, guess what 10 years later our troops are still in Iraq. They will probably just arrest them for something ambiguous like "disturbing the peace" I'd imagine. But again the people with the guns (or the people in charge of the people with guns) make the rules, they do what they want, and a 230 year old piece of paper (the US constitution) isn't going to stop them, is it? BTW, the protesters may want to bring gas masks, unless they like the smell of tear gas.
One of the biggest anti-war protest when the iraq war started? I'm pretty sure you just made that shit up lol. There wasn't that much protest since we just had our asses blown up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
