EPTCurious as to what the end results of what they want to happen would look like.
Occupy Wall Street - Page 69
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
Curious as to what the end results of what they want to happen would look like. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:11 ikl2 wrote: Seriously though. Youtube videos of crazy OWS protestors are no more valid evidence for the evilness of the movement than Youtube videos of crazy TP protestors are evidence of how evil the TP is. I really enjoyed following the discussion that's actually discussion. I agree, though I do think it's an interesting question/issue. How do you have a free and welcoming protest/movement/demonstration, without allowing for the crazy people to end up as the face of the protest. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Seriously though. Youtube videos of crazy OWS protestors are no more valid evidence for the evilness of the movement than Youtube videos of crazy TP protestors are evidence of how evil the TP is. I really enjoyed following the discussion that's actually discussion. Only difference is crazy videos of Tea Partiers weren't representative of the Tea Party and crazy videos of the Occupiers are representative of the serious members of the movement. You can deny it all you want, the Occupiers are a mix of the usual subjects from the activist Left - who have been doing these kinds of protests for decades, it's their occupation if you will - and bored privileged college kids looking to hook up and score drugs. Just go watch the video of John Lewis not being allowed to speak at Occupy Atlanta and say with a straight face that there isn't some seriously weird shit going down there. The Occupy movement has been jumped up by supporters and the press into something it isn't because both of them have Tea Party envy and desperately need to think some kind of force is going to save them and Barack Obama next year. This movement has no real popular support the way the Tea Party did. It's all media fluff. When thousands or tens of thousands showed up to Tea Party rallies the media and the Left did everything to pooh-pooh it, then smear it (they're still stuck on that stage). Look at the coverage of OWS now, where is the skepticism displayed by the media towards the Tea Party? Only in the last week or so, after increasingly violent tweets and statements were being made, has the media started to express even the slightest bit of journalistic skepticism about OWS. Dozens or hundreds of Leftist protesters (at best) will get massive fawning media coverage, thousands or tens of thousands of conservative protesters get the shaft from the media. People are fooling themselves if they think Occupy anywhere is anything more than its media coverage. It's a classic example of the media creating and feeding a false narrative. Where are the massive crowds supporting the "99%"? They can't even get five thousand people? Come on now, stop the delusions of grandeur. If you really support this movement get out there with them because they desperately need bodies, not even the media can act like anyone cares about this forever when the best they can do is several hundred people literally shitting up a park. | ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Only difference is crazy videos of Tea Partiers weren't representative of the Tea Party and crazy videos of the Occupiers are representative of the serious members of the movement. You can deny it all you want, the Occupiers are a mix of the usual subjects from the activist Left - who have been doing these kinds of protests for decades, it's their occupation if you will - and bored privileged college kids looking to hook up and score drugs. Just go watch the video of John Lewis not being allowed to speak at Occupy Atlanta and say with a straight face that there isn't some seriously weird shit going down there. The Occupy movement has been jumped up by supporters and the press into something it isn't because both of them have Tea Party envy and desperately need to think some kind of force is going to save them and Barack Obama next year. This movement has no real popular support the way the Tea Party did. It's all media fluff. When thousands or tens of thousands showed up to Tea Party rallies the media and the Left did everything to pooh-pooh it, then smear it (they're still stuck on that stage). Look at the coverage of OWS now, where is the skepticism displayed by the media towards the Tea Party? Only in the last week or so, after increasingly violent tweets and statements were being made, has the media started to express even the slightest bit of journalistic skepticism about OWS. Dozens or hundreds of Leftist protesters (at best) will get massive fawning media coverage, thousands or tens of thousands of conservative protesters get the shaft from the media. People are fooling themselves if they think Occupy anywhere is anything more than its media coverage. It's a classic example of the media creating and feeding a false narrative. Where are the massive crowds supporting the "99%"? They can't even get five thousand people? Come on now, stop the delusions of grandeur. If you really support this movement get out there with them because they desperately need bodies, not even the media can act like anyone cares about this forever when the best they can do is several hundred people literally shitting up a park. I would wager many of these claims to be inverted. From what I witnessed at occupy portland alone, there were several thousand protesters easily. Additionaly, from what I have found of the press, is mostly minimalisation and marginalization. So far, only the conventionally reliable sources of non-domestic politicized media (Al Jezeera, BBC, NPR) as well as the farce commentaries i.e. Colbert, Stewart have had any actual coverage, most of the main media output i.e. CNN, NBC, FOX has merely had "commentaries" that usually involve negative adjectives and dismissive rhetoric. If people ask what the actual difference between the teaparty and the OWS movements are? teaparty wants to blame the government for the economic situation, (i.e. governments fault because of wasteful spending, and national debt... and govt made economic crisis WORSE because they implemented the bailout) meanwhile, the OWS want to blame the actual banks and large corporations: (since they were the ones selling subprime mortgages as "safe" investment securities, then using the stock market and investment sector to bet AGAINST their own assets to gain money... Not to mention, the newly evolved PART 2 of OWS is that lobbies tend to have HUGE political influence...) Teaparty says: blame government OWS says: blame banking criminals take your pick... its that simple... the extra radicalism doesn't matter / has no impact... | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Dozens or hundreds of Leftist protesters (at best) will get massive fawning media coverage, thousands or tens of thousands of conservative protesters get the shaft from the media. People are fooling themselves if they think Occupy anywhere is anything more than its media coverage. It's a classic example of the media creating and feeding a false narrative. Where are the massive crowds supporting the "99%"? They can't even get five thousand people? Come on now, stop the delusions of grandeur. If you really support this movement get out there with them because they desperately need bodies, not even the media can act like anyone cares about this forever when the best they can do is several hundred people literally shitting up a park. That would have a lot more sting if it wasn't for the fact that the OWS people were out there for something like 2 weeks before getting any media coverage, including some sizable marches (like the one that got people pepper sprayed and thus media coverage). On October 13 2011 03:25 XerrolAvengerII wrote: Teaparty says: blame government OWS says: blame banking criminals take your pick... its that simple... the extra radicalism doesn't matter / has no impact... That's not entirely fair, I think both parties blame the government I think it'd be more accurate to say... Teaparty says: Blame fiscal irresponsibility and an overly large government OWS says: Blame a lack of regulation and de-regulation on banks and investment firms as well as corporate influence over government policies. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
The mainstream politics have to take over every protest/movement so they are not rousted, Just like the multi-factioned Tea Party was eventually mashed in with Republicans and the right. So, this protest will likely fade away and people who actually understand the issues, which are mostly about the unelected bureaucrats in the government doing things without the consent of Congress, will join a new movement that is not left or right. And then, the left or the right will try to take it over, because they need our support to survive.... hopefully, we end up somewhere sane. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Only difference is crazy videos of Tea Partiers weren't representative of the Tea Party and crazy videos of the Occupiers are representative of the serious members of the movement. You can deny it all you want, the Occupiers are a mix of the usual subjects from the activist Left - who have been doing these kinds of protests for decades, it's their occupation if you will - and bored privileged college kids looking to hook up and score drugs. Just go watch the video of John Lewis not being allowed to speak at Occupy Atlanta and say with a straight face that there isn't some seriously weird shit going down there. The Occupy movement has been jumped up by supporters and the press into something it isn't because both of them have Tea Party envy and desperately need to think some kind of force is going to save them and Barack Obama next year. This movement has no real popular support the way the Tea Party did. It's all media fluff. When thousands or tens of thousands showed up to Tea Party rallies the media and the Left did everything to pooh-pooh it, then smear it (they're still stuck on that stage). Look at the coverage of OWS now, where is the skepticism displayed by the media towards the Tea Party? Only in the last week or so, after increasingly violent tweets and statements were being made, has the media started to express even the slightest bit of journalistic skepticism about OWS. Dozens or hundreds of Leftist protesters (at best) will get massive fawning media coverage, thousands or tens of thousands of conservative protesters get the shaft from the media. People are fooling themselves if they think Occupy anywhere is anything more than its media coverage. It's a classic example of the media creating and feeding a false narrative. Where are the massive crowds supporting the "99%"? They can't even get five thousand people? Come on now, stop the delusions of grandeur. If you really support this movement get out there with them because they desperately need bodies, not even the media can act like anyone cares about this forever when the best they can do is several hundred people literally shitting up a park. Does this at all remind you of something a leftist would say about the Tea Party? Would you reply, if they were to say it, that it was inaccurate? ...is there at all the possibility that someone who supports OWS would reply exactly the same way you will to this criticism? Be charitable. Engage with the people that aren't obviously insane, and we'll have a productive discussion. Strawman the other side as racists/homophobes/anti-Semites/stoners and we're going nowhere incredibly fast. If we're just going to strawman the other side, we may as well call each other idiots and call it a day. | ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
On October 13 2011 03:34 darkscream wrote: OWS got co-opted by the left. It sucks, it wasn't a left/right kind of protest before, but now it is. Now they won't oppose the federal reserve, which is the real problem. Instead, they want michael moore to come and tell them about how they should get rid of capitalism. The mainstream politics have to take over every protest/movement so they are not rousted, Just like the multi-factioned Tea Party was eventually mashed in with Republicans and the right. So, this protest will likely fade away and people who actually understand the issues, which are mostly about the unelected bureaucrats in the government doing things without the consent of Congress, will join a new movement that is not left or right. And then, the left or the right will try to take it over, because they need our support to survive.... hopefully, we end up somewhere sane. What is up with all this: "get rid of capitalist" sillyness... all the rightytighties are like omg they wanna get rid of capitalism!!!! I feel like the righties refuse to recognise that the banks were doing immoral and fraudulent practices in the first place, and that if they hadn't (cough cough regulations cough cough) then we wouldn't actually be in a recession and people wouldn't be suffering anywhere near as bad. Not to mention, the REAL PROBLEM in our country is not this silly national debt stuff, or the silly federal reserve stuff, or abortion or gun control or ANY OF THIS STUPID SHIT!!!! its the fact that lobbiests and corperations are holding the government by the balls with funding. Everything is down to money now... whomever can campaign worse smears against their opponents wins, therefor the candidate's need as much money as they can get... where do they get it? by submitting to vassalage to the corporations and powerful lobbies that are so fat on citizen's expense, that they can exert huge corporate influence on government decision-making. All of our political leaders have devolved into whores! I have two links for you guys: 1st is an article about a rightist lobbiest that does lots of wonderful immoral and viscous greedy capitalisty kinda stuff... (that barely legal kind of stuff, that most people object too but he gets away with it kind of stuff): http://tinyurl.com/3b4ovkq ^ this is just an example of the kind of corrupted puppeteers we are dealing with and need to separate from our government... the second article is about iceland, and how iceland dealt with the economic crisis: http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1 And yes, this is more accurate than what I said: Teaparty says: Blame fiscal irresponsibility and an overly large government OWS says: Blame a lack of regulation and de-regulation on banks and investment firms as well as corporate influence over government policies. and for those who just want to feel better about the whole thing: http://www.theonion.com/video/presidents-approval-rating-soars-after-punching-wa,26349/ Just found an interesting comment to yet another news article about rightist journalists going "under cover" in the #OWS protest: the banking cartel: privatise the gains, socialise the losses. I just think that this is an interesting perspective that has some merits...that's NOT capitalism. that's CORPORATISM. behind that suit&tie it's Mussolini's fascist ideals. all this in a society which is in name a republic but in reality an INVERTED TOTALITARIAN STATE Because lets face it, it is "privatised gains" for people that probably wouldnt' suffer without them... and socialised losses payed by people who can't afford them... What kind of beautiful fucking society is that? <-- sarcasm Especially funny that anonymous has their claws ALL OVER this #ows movement lol http://twitter.com/#!/AnonyOps | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Occupy movement has been jumped up by supporters and the press into something it isn't because both of them have Tea Party envy and desperately need to think some kind of force is going to save them and Barack Obama next year. This movement has no real popular support the way the Tea Party did. It's all media fluff. Wasn't the original point of Occupy Wall Street (aside from the whole "protesting corporations") to get people to actually care about what's going on in the government? I think by getting all this media attention that's just what they want. - Now here's the interesting part - OWS wants to get with the labor unions so they can get $$$ to grow bigger. Labor unions get publicity in return. Would this be the final nail in the coffin of alienating the right so government can shut it down before it starts becoming threatening? | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Only difference is crazy videos of Tea Partiers weren't representative of the Tea Party and crazy videos of the Occupiers are representative of the serious members of the movement. LMFAO, this is cognitive dissonance at its worst. I can't believe you just said that. I knew you were a partisan hack, but to say this is just pathetic. Crazy videos of Tea Partiers are as representative of the movement as crazy videos of the OWS people. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On October 13 2011 03:26 Logo wrote: Teaparty says: Blame fiscal irresponsibility and an overly large government OWS says: Blame a lack of regulation and de-regulation on banks and investment firms as well as corporate influence over government policies. I think this synopsis is most aligned to what i think of both are and i'd be more aligned to what OWS is trying to get done then what the tea party is. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:14 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Wasn't the original point of Occupy Wall Street (aside from the whole "protesting corporations") to get people to actually care about what's going on in the government? I think by getting all this media attention that's just what they want. Mission of OWS at face value won't be friendly to Obama. Obama is a big friend of the big financial houses in the US. OWS was non-partisan because Democrats are in bed with the targets and frankly so are the Republicans. On October 13 2011 04:14 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Now here's the interesting part - OWS wants to get with the labor unions so they can get $$$ to grow bigger. Labor unions get publicity in return. Would this be the final nail in the coffin of alienating the right so government can shut it down before it starts becoming threatening? Labor unions want to infiltrate the OWS movement because it has energy, The Democratic party probably sees the labor issues as a way to sap its energy away from WS where they have no credibility towards furthering the labor movement where they are in theory helpful. OWS naturally absorbs the unions because it is an organic chaotic movement. All of this is outside the acceptable channels of political activity for Washington DC, which explains the initial disdain for the idea and its participants. | ||
|
Cytokinesis
Canada330 Posts
Interesting read, gives insight to those who really don't understand 'what' the OWS is doing. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
Ignorant Wall Street Protesters - Rent Is Too Damn High - Jimmy McMillan | ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
I never thought I'd say that Bill Clinton represented my views more than any other politician. Can we elect him again? | ||
|
Doppelganger
488 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:43 Saji wrote: Different perspective on the protest Ignorant Wall Street Protesters - Rent Is Too Damn High - Jimmy McMillan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkpAYVb-IRk Voting does not help if all the representatives get bought. Especially in that two party system it won't work. | ||
|
Doppelganger
488 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:31 Cytokinesis wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10 Interesting read, gives insight to those who really don't understand 'what' the OWS is doing. thank you for sharing that demonstrates perfectly where the problems are. | ||
| ||
