this is a good video explain wtf its about
http://goldsilver.com/video/occupy-wall-street-enforce-the-laws-for-the-99/
http://goldsilver.com/video/occupy-wall-street-enforce-the-laws-for-the-99/
What's the point of "Occupy Wall Street"?
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
JakeStratham, how about "stop letting corporate lobbyists write legislation and hand it over to the politicians that are supposed to be representing US citizens". That is literally happening in some instances. Or "stop treating corporations with unknown and possibly foreign funding as US citizens, allowing them to pour unlimited funds into political campaigns".
Most people aren't against rich people, they are against the unfair influence that the super-rich hold over our government. You would think that would appeal to WF since most people here are fighting hard to get a piece of the pie. Why not make it a fair fight?
Most people aren't against rich people, they are against the unfair influence that the super-rich hold over our government. You would think that would appeal to WF since most people here are fighting hard to get a piece of the pie. Why not make it a fair fight?
I was in Seattle this weekend. Stopped by the occupy wallstreet rally before i got shit faced.
Heres the signs I saw all over, I had to take a picture and gesture my opinion.
Heres the signs I saw all over, I had to take a picture and gesture my opinion.
I don't think either of those things are a result of OWS. Looks like pretty routine and regular political discussion to me (that would happen with or without OWS). Not saying they aren't problems that shouldn't be addressed, but they're not because of OWS. The American people have been "angry" like this for years now...standing in the street about it doesn't really communicate anything more than that.
Could be, but right now this is nothing more than a general complaint. I don't see the protesters wising up about the way they protest anytime soon.
Perhaps it may be seen as a "symbol" of the frustration of the middle class, but I don't see it being anything practical.
They need a more clear message, actual demands, and a plan that involves more than standing in the street with signs.
Right now the demand is "end corporate greed" and "fix corporate America", with no plan to do so. The only way OWS could truly affect this would be through anarchy and sacking NYC/DC. I don't think that'll happen.
Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.
As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.
But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.
- Ann Coulter
Well, why aren't they protesting the government then?
OWS is an Obama pep rally. Won't work.
Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05 - YouTube
There's no causation-effect to connect the news stories, but don't act like these things all happen in their own separate bubbles.
Quote me more Ann Coulter.
And read some history about social movements. People just standing in the streets, if you want to call it that, has been pretty ubiquitous and effective.
It's hard for me to be negative about it because I am intimately involved with it and the people who helped organize it. It started with 100-200 people in a park, then weekly about 80 or people or so, talking about how to make OWS work. The first day it seemed like it would just end, but now it's nationwide, and gone global. I guess it would be more accurate to say joined what was already happening globally. I'm rooting for a surprise. The surest failed bet is on more of the same.
There's no causation-effect to connect the news stories, but don't act like these things all happen in their own separate bubbles.
Quote me more Ann Coulter.
And read some history about social movements. People just standing in the streets, if you want to call it that, has been pretty ubiquitous and effective.
It's hard for me to be negative about it because I am intimately involved with it and the people who helped organize it. It started with 100-200 people in a park, then weekly about 80 or people or so, talking about how to make OWS work. The first day it seemed like it would just end, but now it's nationwide, and gone global. I guess it would be more accurate to say joined what was already happening globally. I'm rooting for a surprise. The surest failed bet is on more of the same.
Here is an interesting article about the Occupywallstreet movement and how it is slowly being demonized by mass media:
Why Anti-OWS Speech Scares Me « AmericanPaki
Why Anti-OWS Speech Scares Me « AmericanPaki
A true free market would be present under anarchy.
Why would they need to sack them if there was anarchy? Anarchy = no bailouts, etc.
That right? I'll tell you one thing I know and that's Goldman Sachs contributions backed Obama early and heavy during his primary campaigns, when Hilary was truly the one to beat (and probably had her eye on the general).
John Rossomando: """Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters. …
By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
Goldman Sachs contributed slightly over $1 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008, compared with $320,820 to Bush in 2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama’s 2008 campaign, compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama’s campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up among Bush’s top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.""""
And what's more (and I defy anyone to challenge me on this) if Obama showed up at a OWS function he'd get a standing ovation.
Instead of being negative, maybe you can tell me why if government is the problem you attack "Wall Street"?
Sorry, buddy. What I quoted was relevant and, unlike Occupy Wall Street, had a point. If you want more Coulter you can go get her yourself.
Because protesting in the street won't convince corrupt politicians to stop being corrupt. Overthrowing the state is the only effective way to bring about such a radical change.
I'll still give it time and see if it develops into anything more, but right now it just seems like a growing cesspool. It started with 50 people in a park making a very general complaint. Now it's thousands of people in multiple parks making a very general complaint. I just don't see how this will change anything, the movement needs more direction.
:angrysoapbox_sml:
The movement doesn't need anything. If anything, the people in it need direction.
Want to create jobs, opportunity, new wealth? Encourage entrepreneurship.
Want stagnation? Encourage socialism.
At some point, in the name of clarity, OWS has to reconcile what it truly wants (socialistic aims) with the risk of turning off a large % of the US population. Time and technology (YouTube videos of self-indulgent assholes, all you need is a handful - how many more cop cars must be shitted on?) is not on OWS's side.
The way back to economic health will be good for Wall Street (repealing Dodd-Frank, for starters) but I think many ideologues would be happier cutting off the nose to spite the face, ie. they will oppose common sense solutions.
On several levels I do not wish to be part of this 99%.
I'm just saying true anarchy would come after the overthrowing of the state, not before.