|
On October 12 2011 09:07 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:41 Reborn8u wrote: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.
(my bold emphasis)
There was a LOT of protest (I was there, I know) that got blacked out of the media. Where do you get your news?
Edit: Oh good, cspan hasn't lost the rnc video in its archives.
|
There was a LOT of protest (I was there, I know) that got blacked out of the media. Where do you get your news?
you've got to be kidding, the anti-war marches in in 2002 and 2003 got massive media coverage
What you meant to say is that it is just about the only example.
History says you're lying.
The "people with the guns" follow orders, that is all. They WILL completely ignore your rights when ordered to.
Unsupported assertion.
The constitution clearly states that only congress can declare war, last time that happened was WWII, how many wars have we been in since?
It's very well-established that the Congress only needs to in effect or intent declare war, not literally pass a Declaration of War.
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.
What you mean is the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978, not some Supreme Court ruling. And you also mean the added provisions to the FISA five-ish years ago. None of it illegal.
Which they don't actually have the power to do, but guess what, they did it anyway.
You don't know what you're talking about.
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 Supreme Court has fairly well defined what the government can and cannot censor. Specifically, you are ignoring the repeated rulings that make political speech nearly impossible to ban. The last major free speech case was Citizens United, which ruled against the government's ability to censor speech.
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
Inaccurate.
and they've done it to at least one American citizen already.
An American citizen in a foreign country who was an active member of a foreign military organization at war with the United States.
Don't act like Joe Sixpack is disappearing off the streets thanks.
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.
By the way, yes there is, set out in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
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.
3/4 of Americans supported invading Iraq at the time, maybe you think you were really in the majority then?
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?
Well first we were hysterical about them getting shot, now we're being hysterical about them getting charged with misdemeanors. Hmm.
BTW, the protesters may want to bring gas masks, unless they like the smell of tear gas.
The police are lucky they already have gas masks, the smell of shit is overwhelming in Zucotti Park from what I read.
One of the most uninformed posts I've ever read. Every single claim you made but one is entirely factually inaccurate.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 12 2011 09:03 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 08:58 cLutZ wrote: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.
What Obama wants to do and what is politically feasible for him to do are two very different things. Obama certainly wants all those things (except perhaps the corporate greed thing, he likes selective crony capitalism). Obama couldn't tax the rich because even when he had 60 Democrats in the Senate that never would have passed, he couldn't flee Afghanistan because he needed to get Osama and he needs to look strong on national security to get re-elected, he obviously is pro union.
My general point is that if Occupy Wall Street is really a discrete political movement (like the Tea Party is a movement that completely changed the Republican Party and continues to influence the national debate) then they will primary (successfully) one or more of these Democratic incumbents:
Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Joe Lieberman - Conn (Again)
Bill Nelson- Florida
Bob Casey - Penn
Joe Manchin - WV
Put another way, in a world where the Tea Party movement emerged pre-2008 McCain probably is not the nominee, just as it is tough for Romney now. Ron Paul is a bigger player now than then, Huckabee probably would have died out sooner in 2008, and guys like Herman Cain would not have even gotten 1% in 2008.
If OWS is pre-2008 Hillary and Obama are still the frontrunners, I don't see any potential Democrat from the 2012 era that would unseat that dynamic based on OWS, and OWS is certainly not going to put up a challenger to Obama in the Democratic primary, because he is all they could ever expect out of a candidate.
|
On October 12 2011 10:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 09:03 DrainX wrote:On October 12 2011 08:58 cLutZ wrote: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. What Obama wants to do and what is politically feasible for him to do are two very different things. Obama certainly wants all those things (except perhaps the corporate greed thing, he likes selective crony capitalism). Obama couldn't tax the rich because even when he had 60 Democrats in the Senate that never would have passed, he couldn't flee Afghanistan because he needed to get Osama and he needs to look strong on national security to get re-elected, he obviously is pro union. My general point is that if Occupy Wall Street is really a discrete political movement (like the Tea Party is a movement that completely changed the Republican Party and continues to influence the national debate) then they will primary (successfully) one or more of these Democratic incumbents: Ben Nelson - Nebraska Joe Lieberman - Conn (Again) Bill Nelson- Florida Bob Casey - Penn Joe Manchin - WV Put another way, in a world where the Tea Party movement emerged pre-2008 McCain probably is not the nominee, just as it is tough for Romney now. Ron Paul is a bigger player now than then, Huckabee probably would have died out sooner in 2008, and guys like Herman Cain would not have even gotten 1% in 2008. If OWS is pre-2008 Hillary and Obama are still the frontrunners, I don't see any potential Democrat from the 2012 era that would unseat that dynamic based on OWS, and OWS is certainly not going to put up a challenger to Obama in the Democratic primary, because he is all they could ever expect out of a candidate.
Just thought I should comment that Joe Lieberman is an Independent and those of us in CT take no responsibility for him.
|
Just thought I should comment that Joe Lieberman is an Independent and those of us in CT take no responsibility for him.
"You" in Connecticut? What happened to the 560,000 who voted for Lieberman, or the 100,000 who voted for the Republican (in 2006)?
"You" who don't take responsibility for him managed just less than 40% of the vote. Yet "you" don't take responsibility for him.
Well thankfully, no one is trying to force you to. You'd have to actually be in the majority to say you don't take responsibility for the majority...
|
On October 12 2011 10:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Just thought I should comment that Joe Lieberman is an Independent and those of us in CT take no responsibility for him. "You" in Connecticut? What happened to the 560,000 who voted for Lieberman, or the 100,000 who voted for the Republican (in 2006)? "You" who don't take responsibility for him managed just less than 40% of the vote. Yet "you" don't take responsibility for him. Well thankfully, no one is trying to force you to. You'd have to actually be in the majority to say you don't take responsibility for the majority...
....k? Are you really butthurt that I spoke for my political party in the state of Connecticut?|
|
On October 12 2011 09:05 mmp wrote:
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.
You are partially right here, but don't forget how large the tea party protests were and how politically active the tea partiers were (and are). It simply wasn't something that could be ignored. It was and is big news.
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.
Yes, this is correct. The tea party is purely about economic and fiscal policy. The social issues are purely collateral.
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.
This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support.
|
So, just gonna pitch in my thoughts here, since alot of the posters above me on this page are... well... fucking clueless.
Us Americans live in a society established by and for the moneyed elite. This super-wealthy modern aristocracy is not going relinquish any substantial amount of power because a bunch of people asked them to. I mean directly or indirectly they control just about all of congress, and they pick all the major candidates, democrats and republicans alike (Obama should be example enough that there really is no difference.)
They also, directly or indirectly, control all major media outlets, the police, the military, and just about all means of production. They have absolutely no concern for the well-being of everyone else, insofar as it allows them to maintain and improve their own status. They can, have, and will continue to do anything, including killing large numbers of innocent people, to defend their position at the top. Not that they'll have to, since they aren't really threatened at all by anything that's being done right now. They are better organized, supplied, and have clearer goals than everyone else. I just don't see how it's possible to beat them with demonstrations alone... or at all.
...especially when a significant amount of the population still believes the majority of what the government and media, institutions that the moneyed elite has controlled since their inception, tell them to believe.
tl;dr If you think you live in a free and 'democratic' society, and that the governing powers have any interest at all in the well-being of the populace, or any incentive to provide for that well-being, you are wrong. This a society... no, this is a WORLD, designed by and for the powerful.
|
This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support.
Words of a sheep.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 12 2011 10:53 Ayabara wrote:Show nested quote + This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support. Words of a sheep.
Please excuse me if I'd rather fix our problems within the confines of the Constitution rather than replacing it with something else.
|
On October 12 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 10:53 Ayabara wrote: This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support. Words of a sheep. Please excuse me if I'd rather fix our problems within the confines of the Constitution rather than replacing it with something else.
I think the idea is to do both.
Fixing the problem goes hand in hand with holding the wrongdoers accountable.
|
|
|
On October 12 2011 10:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 09:05 mmp wrote:
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. You are partially right here, but don't forget how large the tea party protests were and how politically active the tea partiers were (and are). It simply wasn't something that could be ignored. It was and is big news. Show nested quote +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. Yes, this is correct. The tea party is purely about economic and fiscal policy. The social issues are purely collateral. Show nested quote + 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. This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support.
The right points to OWS and highlights the "radical revolutionary elements" and the left points at the Tea Party and highlights all their calls for revolution and "second amendment remedies" and those signs about lynching the president. Both completely miss the point. Basically, the protestors that agree with you are patriots and the ones that don't are radicals (talking about both the left and the right here).
This thread is starting to gain some intelligence in the last couple pages, hopefully that can be built on, both in the criticism and support of OWS.
On October 12 2011 10:53 Ayabara wrote:Show nested quote + This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support. Words of a sheep.
...And there it goes. :/
|
On October 12 2011 10:13 cLutZ wrote:
My general point is that if Occupy Wall Street is really a discrete political movement (like the Tea Party is a movement that completely changed the Republican Party and continues to influence the national debate) then they will primary (successfully) one or more of these Democratic incumbents:
Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Joe Lieberman - Conn (Again)
Bill Nelson- Florida
Bob Casey - Penn
Joe Manchin - WV
Connecticut and Pennsylvania are the only states among those where a non-incumbent liberal Democrat could win a senate seat, unless their Republican opponent was grossly incompetent.
Granted that didn't stop the Tea Party from blowing a sure seat in DE for Mike Castle by selecting Christine O'Donnell, so your point does stand. Although the political calculus is a little different for a left-Democratic group, since their population is concentrated into fewer states and DC doesn't have congressional representation -- in order to form a Senate majority, they need to win a few seats in red states, while Republicans could get 50+ senators just with conservatives in right-leaning states.
Put another way, in a world where the Tea Party movement emerged pre-2008 McCain probably is not the nominee, just as it is tough for Romney now. Ron Paul is a bigger player now than then, Huckabee probably would have died out sooner in 2008, and guys like Herman Cain would not have even gotten 1% in 2008.
If OWS is pre-2008 Hillary and Obama are still the frontrunners, I don't see any potential Democrat from the 2012 era that would unseat that dynamic based on OWS, and OWS is certainly not going to put up a challenger to Obama in the Democratic primary, because he is all they could ever expect out of a candidate.
Well, the Tea Party did start in 2007 and picked up steam in late 2008  But it was too small then to make a difference (it was also a libertarian movement then; I don't think they would support somebody like Cain or have throw their support behind Perry at any time).
Also Obama was such a blank slate in 2008, people tended to project their own vision of politics onto him (his campaign did a great job of using this to their advantage). A 2008 OWS may have rallied behind Obama perceiving him as more progressive than he is. Were we to go back to 2008 and have full knowledge of what Obama's policies would be, it's possible that a candidate less prone to pragmatism might have become a significant force in the primaries, as Cain is today.
Beside that speculation, I really don't see OWS becoming politically powerful in the near future. It took the Tea Party one and a half years to become the force that gathered for the 2009 Tax Day rallies, and they needed a president from the other party to rally against to recruit the less motivated Republicans. Likewise I think OWS or a rebranded offshoot won't take off until we have a Republican president that they can use to bring some of the currently unmotivated Democrats/liberals into the fold. Perry or Cain would probably motivate them more than Romney.
|
On October 12 2011 11:17 Senorcuidado wrote:
The right points to OWS and highlights the "radical revolutionary elements" and the left points at the Tea Party and highlights all their calls for revolution and "second amendment remedies" and those signs about lynching the president. Both completely miss the point. Basically, the protestors that agree with you are patriots and the ones that don't are radicals (talking about both the left and the right here).
Both OWS and the Tea Party obviously are guilty of over-the-top rhetoric. However, don't overlook the fundamental difference between the two movements (other than the fact that Tea Party people have jobs and OWS people don't): there is no prominent component of the Tea Party (if any component at all) that has advocated replacing the Constitution. If anything, the Tea Party's core message is based upon a resurgence of the Constitution and the core values and principles of the founding fathers (please don't be a hack and mention racism here). On the other hand, there are significant far left elements of OWS who do advocate replacing the Constitution.
|
On October 12 2011 11:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 11:17 Senorcuidado wrote:
The right points to OWS and highlights the "radical revolutionary elements" and the left points at the Tea Party and highlights all their calls for revolution and "second amendment remedies" and those signs about lynching the president. Both completely miss the point. Basically, the protestors that agree with you are patriots and the ones that don't are radicals (talking about both the left and the right here). On the other hand, there are significant far left elements of OWS who do advocate replacing the Constitution.
What is this tripe. In the same post you recognized that there are over-the-top rhetoric on both sides. Singling out Constitution as a point at issue is disingenuous.
|
|
|
On October 12 2011 11:51 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2011 11:17 Senorcuidado wrote:
The right points to OWS and highlights the "radical revolutionary elements" and the left points at the Tea Party and highlights all their calls for revolution and "second amendment remedies" and those signs about lynching the president. Both completely miss the point. Basically, the protestors that agree with you are patriots and the ones that don't are radicals (talking about both the left and the right here). On the other hand, there are significant far left elements of OWS who do advocate replacing the Constitution. What is this tripe. In the same post you recognized that there are over-the-top rhetoric on both sides. Singling out Constitution as a point at issue is disingenuous.
Advocating the replacement of the Constitution is not mere rhetoric. It's a policy position. That's the difference.
|
On October 12 2011 11:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 11:51 TOloseGT wrote:On October 12 2011 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2011 11:17 Senorcuidado wrote:
The right points to OWS and highlights the "radical revolutionary elements" and the left points at the Tea Party and highlights all their calls for revolution and "second amendment remedies" and those signs about lynching the president. Both completely miss the point. Basically, the protestors that agree with you are patriots and the ones that don't are radicals (talking about both the left and the right here). On the other hand, there are significant far left elements of OWS who do advocate replacing the Constitution. What is this tripe. In the same post you recognized that there are over-the-top rhetoric on both sides. Singling out Constitution as a point at issue is disingenuous. Advocating the replacement of the Constitution is not mere rhetoric. It's a policy position. That's the difference.
What policy. OWS is a bunch of protests with a general theme against greed. There is no central element and there is certainly not a OWS Ron Paul.
Also, yes, the Tea Party hasn't been co-opted, but only half of the Tea Partiers know what the original Tea Party stands for, the rest are there for the ride because "herp derp Conservatives rock, fuck liberals."
|
For the OWS movement to be successful, they need to focus their message. Enough of this "corporations are evil" bullshit, they need to focus their attentions on the political process and on the one issue that is actually important: the economy (and long-term, the environment). The problem is that the U.S. Government especially the Federal Reserve is hampered by the current political atmosphere. Yes, I am referring to certain right-wing reactionaries who view any attempt at fixing the economy as illegitimate despite the mandate that Obama was given in 2008.
The OWS needs to represent a countervailing force against the Tea Party to give the U.S. Government an environment where it can at least try to fix the economic issues. Because the government continuing to sit on its ass has done little good since the recession started.
Unfortunately, the OWS movement is made up of young, idealistic, and, worst of all, stupid protesters who think jailing bank executives or complaining about stupid shit like animal abuse will have any effect whatsoever on the livelihoods of the 99% they claim to represent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
