Forums → WEPR → Occupy Wall Street

114	27884

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 19, '11 9:33pm UTC

It is surprising to me that there us no thread for this yet (at least not one that I have found) so I decided to make one here. The main purpose of this thread should be to discuss opinions, motives, effects, ethicality, etc. on the Occupy Wall Street movement, along with other Occupy movements.

----------------------------

Now for my personal opinion. I am all for the motive, but the means (such as the shutdown of bridges, causing reduction of transportation) are questionable.

I think that shutting down bridges is not an ethical way to go about a protest. However, being the first major global protest with this kind of purpose, this might have been the only option for OWS to gain notoriety.

Since I have been researching heavily into this, I am willing to answer any questions about the means and motive of the protests, along with explaining political terminology.

Here are a variety of links to discuss:

http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/

http://www.progressive.org/occupy_wall_st_broadan_approach.html

http://occupywallst.org/

------------------------------

Also, remember to keep the material on this forum non-flammatory. Any political ideas are allowed, even including Marxism, neoliberalism, etc..

It is surprising to me that there us no thread for this yet (at least not one that I have found) so I decided to make one here. The main purpose of this thread should be to discuss opinions, motives, effects, ethicality, etc. on the Occupy Wall Street movement, along with other Occupy movements.\r\n\r\n----------------------------\r\n\r\nNow for my personal opinion. I am all for the motive, but the means (such as the shutdown of bridges, causing reduction of transportation) are questionable. \r\n\r\nI think that shutting down bridges is not an ethical way to go about a protest. However, being the first major global protest with this kind of purpose, this might have been the only option for OWS to gain notoriety.\r\n\r\nSince I have been researching heavily into this, I am willing to answer any questions about the means and motive of the protests, along with explaining political terminology.\r\n\r\nHere are a variety of links to discuss:\r\n\r\nhttp://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/\r\n\r\nhttp://www.progressive.org/occupy_wall_st_broadan_approach.html\r\n\r\nhttp://occupywallst.org/\r\n\r\n------------------------------\r\n\r\nAlso, remember to keep the material on this forum non-flammatory. Any political ideas are allowed, even including Marxism, neoliberalism, etc..

114 Replies

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted November 19, '11 10:56pm UTC

I do not support the Occupy movement for a number of different reasons.

1. You can't demand change from the government if all the protestors are asking for different things.

* Even though most of the protestors lean left, they don't support a common solution. You have people who want to end the Fed, keep the Fed, resort to socialism, fight socialism, bail out students, stop all bail outs, and so on.

2. Most of the major proposals (that a majority of protestors agree with), I am against.

* Many of the protestors are against big wall street bail outs, however, they want the government to bail out students. I believe ALL bailouts are wrong.

* Many protests want us to raise taxes on the rich.

I believe taxation is theft and the less taxation, the better. This means we should try to find ways of supporting our government with little to no taxation. Regardless as to whether taxation is moral or not, we can't simply increase taxes and expect the economy to recover. As long as government spending goes up, it doesn't matter if we increase taxes or not, we will still have a huge financial problem.

Before we think of raising taxes, the government needs to stop spending so much money. Many or the protestors want the government to spend EVEN MORE than what they already are.

* Many protestors don't understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Many protestors look at the corporations whom bribe our politicians and they say "we need to decrease corporate power by increasing government power." The problem is that corporate power increases alongside political power. The more powerful the government becomes, the more susceptible to bribes they become.

If we take power away from the government, then they won't have the power to bail out corporations or create unjust laws that bully smaller businesses. Corporations can still bribe politicians, but without the power to cater to the corporation's whims, the money becomes nothing more than a waste. This will force giant corporations to compete fairly in the market.

3. The protest has grown out of hand in too many areas.

I'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation.

Most of the protestors aren't committing these crimes though, and to be fair, many of them are trying to remain peaceful despite the actions of fellow protestors. It's just increasingly difficult to support a group that's causing so many problems as a whole.

I do not support the Occupy movement for a number of different reasons.\r\n\r\n1. You can't demand change from the government if all the protestors are asking for different things. \r\n\r\n* Even though most of the protestors lean left, they don't support a common solution. You have people who want to end the Fed, keep the Fed, resort to socialism, fight socialism, bail out students, stop all bail outs, and so on. \r\n\r\n2. Most of the major proposals (that a majority of protestors agree with), I am against.\r\n\r\n* Many of the protestors are against big wall street bail outs, however, they want the government to bail out students. I believe [b]ALL[/b] bailouts are wrong.\r\n\r\n* Many protests want us to raise taxes on the rich. \r\n\r\nI believe taxation is theft and the less taxation, the better. This means we should try to find ways of supporting our government with little to no taxation. Regardless as to whether taxation is moral or not, we can't simply increase taxes and expect the economy to recover. As long as government spending goes up, it doesn't matter if we increase taxes or not, we will still have a huge financial problem.\r\n\r\nBefore we think of raising taxes, the government needs to stop spending so much money. Many or the protestors want the government to spend EVEN MORE than what they already are.\r\n\r\n* Many protestors don't understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism. \r\n\r\nMany protestors look at the corporations whom bribe our politicians and they say "we need to decrease corporate power by increasing government power." The problem is that corporate power increases alongside political power. The more powerful the government becomes, the more susceptible to bribes they become.\r\n\r\nIf we take power away from the government, then they won't have the power to bail out corporations or create unjust laws that bully smaller businesses. Corporations can still bribe politicians, but without the power to cater to the corporation's whims, the money becomes nothing more than a waste. This will force giant corporations to compete fairly in the market.\r\n\r\n3. The protest has grown out of hand in too many areas.\r\n\r\nI'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation. \r\n\r\nMost of the protestors aren't committing these crimes though, and to be fair, many of them are trying to remain peaceful despite the actions of fellow protestors. It's just increasingly difficult to support a group that's causing so many problems as a whole.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,447 posts

Jester

Posted November 20, '11 12:15am UTC

I'm glad the government finally got the guts to tell them that it's illegal to camp in a public park. I mean if anyone else decided to do it they'd get kicked out immediately. The only reason they got to stay for 3 months was because a district judge that strongly supported unions ignored the laws and told them it was ok. I'm glad the police kicked them out in the middle of the night when they were sleeping instead of waiting until they had a chance to organize and resist. That would've been a lot worse.

I'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation.

Most of that wouldn't have happened if the police stopped overnight stays from the start.

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 12:26am UTC

1. You can't demand change from the government if all the protestors are asking for different things.

* Even though most of the protestors lean left, they don't support a common solution. You have people who want to end the Fed, keep the Fed, resort to socialism, fight socialism, bail out students, stop all bail outs, and so on.

I partially agree. However, 'most of the protestors' makes it seem as if a large portion are right-wingers. 'Almost all' would be more appropriate.

There are two things that almost all of the protestors agree upon:

1) Corporations manipulate people and make little contribution to society

2) America has virtually no left-wing representation in the government, despite the fact that a poll in 2008 said 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism over Capitalism

A corollary to proposition 1) is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing larger and larger. The slogan 'We are the 99%', despite being a hyperbole and a method of propaganda, does have some meaning. It means that the 1% are living a rich and leisurely life, while there are many people out there struggling to find a supportive job.

A right-wing response to this might be "then why don't they get of their butts and find a job?". This is impossible for some people, for a variety of reasons. One, there are more people in the U.S. than there are jobs. Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job. Growing up in a financially disadvantaged family, I am soon to be one of those people despite my profound abilities in Mathematics.

Also, I would like to point out that many homeless people are not homeless because they are lazy. This is an ignorant generalization. Sure, there exist many homeless people who are homeless due to drug use. But many have mental illness and no family to take care of them. Many couldn't find a job. As many as 1/3 of homeless citizens are war veterans who had no financial standing after they returned to America.

Almost constantly, right-wing politicians have been trying to block financial aid laws that are designed to reduce the size of this giant chasm between the rich and the poor. Their main justification for this is because 'it is wrong to choose winners and losers.' I am diametrically opposed to this philosophy when it comes to the 'winners' being people who can afford the basic necessities of life and the 'losers' being people who can't.

Many people may find that proposition 2) very surprising, because the first thing that runs through their mind is aren't the Democrats left-wingers?. The truth is, no. This is mainly because of two things:

- Political parties tend to drift over time due two popular social and economic trends

- Every time such a drift occurs, Americans feel the need to adjust the Democratic party and Republican party towards the center-left and center-right economic positions respectively

This drift-and-readjustment process that occurs in the American two-party system has caused our political spectrum to be extremely narrow. Therefore, taking a moderate stance in the American sense (i.e. a political stance between the Democrats and Republicans) will be taking a very conservative stance in the European sense. Those viewed as left-wing extremists in America will simply be viewed as social democrats in Europe.

From the preceding paragraph, we find that the Democrats, who are viewed as center-left in America, are viewed as mainstream conservatives in Europe. But if 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism, which is much farther left than the Democratic Party, then where is Americaâs socialist representation in Congress? The answer to that is, we have only one socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.

Many left-wing protestors feel that their representation in Congress is not expressed. Where is the democracy here? If our government, along with other governments, want to follow the growing popularity of neoliberalism, flaws in the system of Representative Government leave the left-wingers with little to no representation. This is happening more rapidly in America than in Europe, because most European countries conform to a multi-party system.

* Many of the protestors are against big wall street bail outs, however, they want the government to bail out students. I believe ALL bailouts are wrong.

I do not understand why you believe this. Many students can hardly get by, individual bailout is sure to give financial aid. The main problem with corporate bailout is that the government treats these big corporations like people, and many Republican senators are bribed to give such bailout.

Before we think of raising taxes, the government needs to stop spending so much money. Many or the protestors want the government to spend EVEN MORE than what they already are.

I agree with this. If you are a conservative, you will probably disagree on me saying that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs. This is my opinion because I am moderately non-interventionist, and I think that war should be avoided whenever it is possible. Also, one of the big purposes of taxation is to provide for financial aid programs, so cutting financial aid programs in order to raise taxes for financial aid programs is circular.

Many protestors look at the corporations who bribe our politicians and they say "we need to decrease corporate power by increasing government power." The problem is that corporate power increases alongside political power. The more powerful the government becomes, the more susceptible to bribes they become.

I do not think that protestors usually say this. They are mainly vouching that individual bailout will decrease the gap between the 99% and the 1%. Most of them want to decrease the power of corporations, but usually just by making the government punish the corporations for misleading the general public. I am not really sure what you mean by âgovernment powerâ; government power over what? Could you please explain further?

Also, Democrats are much less susceptible to corporate bribery than Republicans. By increasing the left-wing representation in Congress, even fewer politicians will be susceptible to corporate bribery. This is because most left-wingers dislike corporate power in general.

I'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation.

Keep in mind that this happens to every protests. In fact, the protests are relatively peaceful compared to the Civil Rights Protests in the 60âs, led by Martin Luther King Jr. The reason that this fact is surprising is that the King protests were glorified (rightfully); there is virtually no reactionary section opposed to those protests today.

With OWS, there are very many reactionaries since the movement is currently in progress. The OWS reactionaries have virtually the same criticisms that the King protest reactionaries had in the 60âs (violent, crazy, etc.). However, the King protests were much, much worse along the parameters that you are using to criticize OWS. In fact, there were many riots during the summers of the 60âs as a result of these protests.

[quote]1. You can't demand change from the government if all the protestors are asking for different things.\r\n\r\n* Even though most of the protestors lean left, they don't support a common solution. You have people who want to end the Fed, keep the Fed, resort to socialism, fight socialism, bail out students, stop all bail outs, and so on.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI partially agree. However, 'most of the protestors' makes it seem as if a large portion are right-wingers. 'Almost all' would be more appropriate.\r\n\r\nThere are two things that almost all of the protestors agree upon:\r\n\r\n1) Corporations manipulate people and make little contribution to society\r\n\r\n2) America has virtually no left-wing representation in the government, despite the fact that a poll in 2008 said 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism over Capitalism\r\n\r\nA corollary to proposition 1) is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing larger and larger. The slogan 'We are the 99%', despite being a hyperbole and a method of propaganda, does have some meaning. It means that the 1% are living a rich and leisurely life, while there are many people out there struggling to find a supportive job.\r\n\r\nA right-wing response to this might be "then why don't they get of their butts and find a job?". This is impossible for some people, for a variety of reasons. One, there are more people in the U.S. than there are jobs. Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job. Growing up in a financially disadvantaged family, I am soon to be one of those people despite my profound abilities in Mathematics.\r\n\r\nAlso, I would like to point out that many homeless people are not homeless because they are lazy. This is an ignorant generalization. Sure, there exist many homeless people who are homeless due to drug use. But many have mental illness and no family to take care of them. Many couldn't find a job. As many as 1/3 of homeless citizens are war veterans who had no financial standing after they returned to America.\r\n\r\nAlmost constantly, right-wing politicians have been trying to block financial aid laws that are designed to reduce the size of this giant chasm between the rich and the poor. Their main justification for this is because 'it is wrong to choose winners and losers.' I am diametrically opposed to this philosophy when it comes to the 'winners' being people who can afford the basic necessities of life and the 'losers' being people who can't.\r\n\r\nMany people may find that proposition 2) very surprising, because the first thing that runs through their mind is [i]aren't the Democrats left-wingers?[/i]. The truth is, no. This is mainly because of two things:\r\n\r\n- Political parties tend to drift over time due two popular social and economic trends\r\n\r\n- Every time such a drift occurs, Americans feel the need to adjust the Democratic party and Republican party towards the center-left and center-right economic positions respectively\r\n\r\nThis drift-and-readjustment process that occurs in the American two-party system has caused our political spectrum to be extremely narrow. Therefore, taking a moderate stance in the American sense (i.e. a political stance between the Democrats and Republicans) will be taking a very conservative stance in the European sense. Those viewed as left-wing extremists in America will simply be viewed as social democrats in Europe.\r\n\r\nFrom the preceding paragraph, we find that the Democrats, who are viewed as center-left in America, are viewed as mainstream conservatives in Europe. But if 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism, which is much farther left than the Democratic Party, then where is Americaâ��s socialist representation in Congress? The answer to that is, we have only one socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.\r\n\r\nMany left-wing protestors feel that their representation in Congress is not expressed. Where is the democracy here? If our government, along with other governments, want to follow the growing popularity of neoliberalism, flaws in the system of Representative Government leave the left-wingers with little to no representation. This is happening more rapidly in America than in Europe, because most European countries conform to a multi-party system.\r\n\r\n[quote]* Many of the protestors are against big wall street bail outs, however, they want the government to bail out students. I believe ALL bailouts are wrong.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI do not understand why you believe this. Many students can hardly get by, individual bailout is sure to give financial aid. The main problem with corporate bailout is that the government treats these big corporations like people, and many Republican senators are bribed to give such bailout.\r\n\r\n[quote]Before we think of raising taxes, the government needs to stop spending so much money. Many or the protestors want the government to spend EVEN MORE than what they already are.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI agree with this. If you are a conservative, you will probably disagree on me saying that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs. This is my opinion because I am moderately non-interventionist, and I think that war should be avoided whenever it is possible. Also, one of the big purposes of taxation is to provide for financial aid programs, so cutting financial aid programs in order to raise taxes for financial aid programs is circular.\r\n\r\n[quote]Many protestors look at the corporations who bribe our politicians and they say "we need to decrease corporate power by increasing government power." The problem is that corporate power increases alongside political power. The more powerful the government becomes, the more susceptible to bribes they become.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI do not think that protestors usually say this. They are mainly vouching that individual bailout will decrease the gap between the 99% and the 1%. Most of them want to decrease the power of corporations, but usually just by making the government punish the corporations for misleading the general public. I am not really sure what you mean by â��government powerâ��; government power over what? Could you please explain further?\r\n\r\nAlso, Democrats are much less susceptible to corporate bribery than Republicans. By increasing the left-wing representation in Congress, even fewer politicians will be susceptible to corporate bribery. This is because most left-wingers dislike corporate power in general.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation.[/quote]\r\n\r\nKeep in mind that this happens to every protests. In fact, the protests are relatively peaceful compared to the Civil Rights Protests in the 60â��s, led by Martin Luther King Jr. The reason that this fact is surprising is that the King protests were glorified (rightfully); there is virtually no reactionary section opposed to those protests today.\r\n\r\nWith OWS, there are very many reactionaries since the movement is currently in progress. The OWS reactionaries have virtually the same criticisms that the King protest reactionaries had in the 60â��s (violent, crazy, etc.). However, the King protests were much, much worse along the parameters that you are using to criticize OWS. In fact, there were many riots during the summers of the 60â��s as a result of these protests.

offline

partydevil

5,132 posts

Jester

Posted November 20, '11 1:02am UTC

Since I have been researching heavily into this, I am willing to answer any questions about the means and motive of the protests, along with explaining political terminology.

i'm still waiting for possible and valid demands.

what do the protesters actualy want to happen?

protesting because the rich are rich and the poor are poor. isn't realy someting sensefull to protest against. and on a 2nd note isn't any of the "occupy" countrys a poor country.

i find the "occupy" protestings compleetly useless because there are no demands.
and occupying the stock market area isn't going to do anything. because those people can just as easy work from home. or even the other side of the world. this protest would have had inpact any time befor i-net but not anymore now.

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 1:20am UTC

@ partydevil: Just because most of the demands are not uniformly requested, it does not mean that the Movement has no purpose. There could be many movements following this one that have a clear list of demands. This movement serves best as an introduction.

Internally there are many demands, but all protestors are fed up with the large gap between the rich and the poor, and corporate greed.

Many OWSers want a revolution, and others do not. Some want the Capitalist system replaced with a Socialist system. I see that a revolution is impossible (no matter how desirable).

What I want to emerge from these protests (and the following ones that are likely to occur) are two things:

1) An increase of left-wing politicians

2) FDR's Bill of Rights to be legitimately acted upon

offline

ChillzMaster

1,435 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 5:44am UTC

I have the greatest idea ever. We should take the KKK, put them next to the OWS guys, and then watch them fight it out on national TV for Pay-Per-View! Recession-FIXED!

Lulz, but in all seriousness, if this group of punk-kids don't even know what the devil they're protesting for, then they shouldn't have the right to protest, and shutting down public utilities (like certain subways) is an act of crime, and should be dealt with accordingly.

-Chillz

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,447 posts

Jester

Posted November 20, '11 5:52am UTC

Just because most of the demands are not uniformly requested, it does not mean that the Movement has no purpose

It's kind of like the start of worker's rights movement and unionizing. No one really agreed on specific things at first, they just knew they wanted stuff to be better.

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 6:40am UTC

shutting down public utilities (like certain subways) is an act of crime, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Remember that this is one of the first protests of this kind, and that shutting down subways and such is a method of gaining notoriety. Things such as this happen in nearly all protests, and are almost inevitable. In fact, these protests are relatively peaceful compared to many others.

this group of punk-kids don't even know what the devil they're protesting for

Every individual protestor has a clear, concise idea of what he/she is protesting for. The problem is that these ideas are not always the same. See the two things listed in the post directly preceding yours in order to get a view of what I want out of this movement.

Yet again, I need to state that this movement will act mainly as an introduction to the corollary movements sure to follow after it. A main slogan of the protest: "You can't evict an idea whose time has come."

[quote]shutting down public utilities (like certain subways) is an act of crime, and should be dealt with accordingly.[/quote]\r\nRemember that this is one of the first protests of this kind, and that shutting down subways and such is a method of gaining notoriety. Things such as this happen in nearly all protests, and are almost inevitable. In fact, these protests are relatively peaceful compared to many others. \r\n\r\n[quote]this group of punk-kids don't even know what the devil they're protesting for[/quote]\r\nEvery individual protestor has a clear, concise idea of what he/she is protesting for. The problem is that these ideas are not always the same. See the two things listed in the post directly preceding yours in order to get a view of what I want out of this movement.\r\n\r\nYet again, I need to state that this movement will act mainly as an introduction to the corollary movements sure to follow after it. A main slogan of the protest: "You can't evict an idea whose time has come."

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 6:43am UTC

Sorry for the double post:

they shouldn't have the right to protest

They do, and they should. Protests are necessary for many forms of progression; "dissent is patriotic".

offline

EnterOrion

4,223 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 6:56am UTC

that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs

Financial aid programs cost quite a bit more than even our massive military budget. Hundreds of billions more, actually.

If anything, we need to cut them both by half or more.

Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job.

Not going to lie, a stint in the Marine Corps will do you some good.

If these kids are complaining about college, they should just join the military. Government pays for college, they become a better person. Hell, in the Navy they won't even get shot at.

They're doing it wrong. If they want to turn a disorganized mess into something that changes, violent revolution is the only way. They'd also give me the opportunity to shoot hippies, so it's a win-win.\r\n\r\nSeriously though, being peaceful isn't going to get them anywhere. Peaceful movements only work with massive numbers of people working for the same goal, not a heavily fragmented and easily ruffled group of pothead hippies with nothing better to do.\r\n\r\n[quote]that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs[/quote]\r\n\r\nFinancial aid programs cost quite a bit more than even our massive military budget. Hundreds of billions more, actually.\r\n\r\nIf anything, we need to cut them both by half or more.\r\n\r\n[quote]Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job. [/quote]\r\n\r\nNot going to lie, a stint in the Marine Corps will do you some good.\r\n\r\nIf these kids are complaining about college, they should just join the military. Government pays for college, they become a better person. Hell, in the Navy they won't even get shot at.

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 5:56pm UTC

They're doing it wrong. If they want to turn a disorganized mess into something that changes, violent revolution is the only way.

Seriously though, being peaceful isn't going to get them anywhere. Peaceful movements only work with massive numbers of people working for the same goal, not a heavily fragmented and easily ruffled group of pothead hippies with nothing better to do.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Think of the Arab Spring revolution wave, which was peaceful. Also, many of the protestors do not want a revolution, because they see it as inefficient and impossible.

If these kids are complaining about college, they should just join the military. Government pays for college, they become a better person. Hell, in the Navy they won't even get shot at.

Many of the protestors are opposed to war.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,447 posts

Jester

Posted November 20, '11 5:57pm UTC

that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs

I would've said cut them both by the same % each so it's fair to both sides.

Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job.

There are plenty of people who were able to be extremely successful without going to or finishing college: Sir Francis Drake, Abe Lincoln, John D Rockefeller, John Jacob Astor (the richest guy on the Titanic), James Byrnes, Felix Dennis, Richard Desmond, Walt Disney, Michael Dell, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, George Eastman, Eike Batista, Ray Bradbury, Glenn Beck, Richard Branson, Ronald Burkle, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Tom Dwan...

offline

ZipperedVenus42

185 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 6:00pm UTC

Let me clarify about the Arab Spring. The protests were peaceful, and they resulted in revolutions. Also, violent revolution isn't the only way necessary because the Constitution is open to legislation that many of the protestors want.

offline

EnterOrion

4,223 posts

Nomad

Posted November 20, '11 6:33pm UTC

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Think of the Arab Spring revolution wave, which was peaceful. Also, many of the protestors do not want a revolution, because they see it as inefficient and impossible.

Arab Spring knew what it wanted (and still ended up in violence, go figure). OWS does not.

Many of the protestors are opposed to war.

And? Join the Navy or National Guard then.

If they have a problem with the National Guard, they've got bigger problems than not going to college.

Also, violent revolution isn't the only way necessary because the Constitution is open to legislation that many of the protestors want.

Not like the Constitution is relevant anyways.

At any rate, of course it is. They aren't asking for anything rights wise, just everything else. That's why they'll fail. They have no single goal, but rather many different goals. They're too disorganized to work in any efficient matter. Hell, the Tea Party is more organized than they are, and they're both similar groups. Guess which one is more successful? (hint: Tea Party)

If they want what they want, and want what they want now, they aren't going to camp in parks, get high, sleep it off, and defecate on police cars. They'd be better off doing a slash and burn method. If they're really the 99%, they should have enough support, right?

[quote]This couldn't be farther from the truth. Think of the Arab Spring revolution wave, which was peaceful. Also, many of the protestors do not want a revolution, because they see it as inefficient and impossible.[/quote]\r\n\r\nArab Spring knew what it wanted (and still ended up in violence, go figure). OWS does not.\r\n\r\n[quote]Many of the protestors are opposed to war.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd? Join the Navy or National Guard then.\r\n\r\nIf they have a problem with the National Guard, they've got bigger problems than not going to college.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, violent revolution isn't the only way necessary because the Constitution is open to legislation that many of the protestors want.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot like the Constitution is relevant anyways.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, of course it is. They aren't asking for anything rights wise, just everything else. That's why they'll fail. They have no single goal, but rather many different goals. They're too disorganized to work in any efficient matter. Hell, the Tea Party is more organized than they are, and they're both similar groups. Guess which one is more successful? (hint: Tea Party)\r\n\r\nIf they want what they want, and want what they want now, they aren't going to camp in parks, get high, sleep it off, and defecate on police cars. They'd be better off doing a slash and burn method. If they're really the 99%, they should have enough support, right?

offline

partydevil

5,132 posts

Jester

Posted November 20, '11 7:19pm UTC

Just because most of the demands are not uniformly requested

what demands? there are no demands.

all protestors are fed up with the large gap between the rich and the poor, and corporate greed.

so the people want the rich people to give away their money to the rest. maybe even untill evry1 in the country has the same amount of money?
and business are created to make money that is the main purpose of a company. you can't flip them off only because they are succesfull.

An increase of left-wing politicians

democratic country right? if you want more of them you have to vote for them. if the majority doesn't want them and then it's to bad. gotta live whit it.

(i'm not getting your 2nd point.)

shutting down subways and such is a method of gaining notoriety. Things such as this happen in nearly all protests

not realy. normaly you protest at the place your protesting against.
i know there isn't such a place cause the protest is against nothing but the name says wallstreet not "occupy subway"

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Think of the Arab Spring revolution wave, which was peaceful

the arab spring is far from peacefull. in evry country there have been deaths.

[quote]Just because most of the demands are not uniformly requested[/quote]\r\n\r\nwhat demands? there are no demands.\r\n\r\n[quote]all protestors are fed up with the large gap between the rich and the poor, and corporate greed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nso the people want the rich people to give away their money to the rest. maybe even untill evry1 in the country has the same amount of money?\r\nand business are created to make money that is the main purpose of a company. you can't flip them off only because they are succesfull.\r\n\r\n[quote]An increase of left-wing politicians[/quote]\r\ndemocratic country right? if you want more of them you have to vote for them. if the majority doesn't want them and then it's to bad. gotta live whit it.\r\n\r\n(i'm not getting your 2nd point.)\r\n\r\n[quote]shutting down subways and such is a method of gaining notoriety. [b]Things such as this happen in nearly all protests[/b][/quote]\r\nnot realy. normaly you protest at the place your protesting against.\r\ni know there isn't such a place cause the protest is against nothing but the name says wallstreet not "occupy subway" \r\n\r\n[quote]This couldn't be farther from the truth. Think of the Arab Spring revolution wave, which was peaceful[/quote]\r\nthe arab spring is far from peacefull. in evry country there have been deaths.

1
2
3
4
5
Last

Showing 1-15 of 114

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Occupy Wall Street