What's new
By:

Occupy Wall Street

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agoxlea
  • Start date Start date
LogGrad98 said:
I think this movement is done. Devolving in multiple areas into chaos, deaths associated with the sit-ins, allegations of drugs, over-staying permits, clashes with police, sanitation issues, etc. Apparently a movement with no direction doesn't really go anywhere. Who knew?
Click to expand...

In other words, a movement without any movement.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think this movement is done. Devolving in multiple areas into chaos, deaths associated with the sit-ins, allegations of drugs, over-staying permits, clashes with police, sanitation issues, etc. Apparently a movement with no direction doesn't really go anywhere. Who knew?
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think if they had been ignored, or even reasonably covered by the media they probably would have fizzled, but the violent tactics and rights violations by police are upsetting a lot of people and I believe support will grow. The movement might transform, because as in Oakland there are those in every camp who are promoting violence and that is becoming a pretty huge problem. Maybe they will figure out a way to get their message across while separating themselves from the "anarchists" who are really just violent upset people. I think the violence is counterproductive for both sides.
 
Agoxlea said:
I disagree. I think if they had been ignored, or even reasonably covered by the media they probably would have fizzled, but the violent tactics and rights violations by police are upsetting a lot of people and I believe support will grow. The movement might transform, because as in Oakland there are those in every camp who are promoting violence and that is becoming a pretty huge problem. Maybe they will figure out a way to get their message across while separating themselves from the "anarchists" who are really just violent upset people. I think the violence is counterproductive for both sides.
Click to expand...

Which is it?
 
If violence by the police causes the movement to grow, that is counterproductive to the ends of the police. So, both?
 
Agoxlea said:
I disagree. I think if they had been ignored, or even reasonably covered by the media they probably would have fizzled, but the violent tactics and rights violations by police are upsetting a lot of people and I believe support will grow. The movement might transform, because as in Oakland there are those in every camp who are promoting violence and that is becoming a pretty huge problem. Maybe they will figure out a way to get their message across while separating themselves from the "anarchists" who are really just violent upset people. I think the violence is counterproductive for both sides.
Click to expand...

There's a message? They should probably tell people what it is then because I haven't got the slightest idea what they want.
 
Agoxlea said:
I disagree. I think if they had been ignored, or even reasonably covered by the media they probably would have fizzled, but the violent tactics and rights violations by police are upsetting a lot of people and I believe support will grow. The movement might transform, because as in Oakland there are those in every camp who are promoting violence and that is becoming a pretty huge problem. Maybe they will figure out a way to get their message across while separating themselves from the "anarchists" who are really just violent upset people. I think the violence is counterproductive for both sides.
Click to expand...

So violent tactics by the police may grow support. But violence is counterproductive to both sides. Sounds like if it makes the support grow then it is productive for one side at least. How again is that mutually exclusive? Some violence is good for it, like certain types or something, but some violence is bad?

To me, the devolution of this thing into violent stand-offs with police shows it has run its course. The group in New York, I believe, lost their court case when they were evicted since technically they were squatting and not really protesting. Even if it maintains some momentum, I do not know many people who are sympathetic to the cause any more, and that includes a handful that were active in the protests in San Francisco early on.

Like Gameface said, what message? All they talk about is the violence, the court cases about squatting in parks, and the standoffs with police. The message is lost, as if it was ever that strong to begin with. I applaud them for getting a lot of people behind the movement, but they failed miserably in getting it to actually mean anything. Too bad really. The best thing that might come out of this is the push to move your money from big banks to credit unions, where even some government entities are now following suit. Money is the only thing the banks hear, not chanting.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So violent tactics by the police may grow support. But violence is counterproductive to both sides. Sounds like if it makes the support grow then it is productive for one side at least. How again is that mutually exclusive? Some violence is good for it, like certain types or something, but some violence is bad?

To me, the devolution of this thing into violent stand-offs with police shows it has run its course. The group in New York, I believe, lost their court case when they were evicted since technically they were squatting and not really protesting. Even if it maintains some momentum, I do not know many people who are sympathetic to the cause any more, and that includes a handful that were active in the protests in San Francisco early on.

Like Gameface said, what message? All they talk about is the violence, the court cases about squatting in parks, and the standoffs with police. The message is lost, as if it was ever that strong to begin with. I applaud them for getting a lot of people behind the movement, but they failed miserably in getting it to actually mean anything. Too bad really. The best thing that might come out of this is the push to move your money from big banks to credit unions, where even some government entities are now following suit. Money is the only thing the banks hear, not chanting.
Click to expand...

Violence by the police is bad for the police because it gets even more protesters involved. Violence by the protesters is bad for the protesters because it makes them look like they are out to cause trouble, and not be taken seriously. Who knows what will come out of it, but I think dismissing them at this point is premature.
 
So camping out in parks is bad... So horrible that we need police force.

Yet, a few tea party people jamming up Congress believing that they are acting under the divine, pushing us off the default cliff, is somehow Patriotic?

Interesting...
 
The Thriller said:
So camping out in parks is bad... So horrible that we need police force.

Yet, a few tea party people jamming up Congress believing that they are acting under the divine, pushing us off the default cliff, is somehow Patriotic?

Interesting...
Click to expand...

The really funny thing about your comments is you are the only one who has brought up the tea party in this thread at all, yet you ascribe some kind of ulterior motive to everyone else centered around the tea party, which no one else has brought up for positive or negative. You really sound like a left-wing nutjob conspiracy theorist.

Unless you are not referring to anyone on this thread, in which case...nah, you still sound like a left-wing conspiracy theorist nut-job.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The really funny thing about your comments is you are the only one who has brought up the tea party in this thread at all, yet you ascribe some kind of ulterior motive to everyone else centered around the tea party, which no one else has brought up for positive or negative. You really sound like a left-wing nutjob conspiracy theorist.

Unless you are not referring to anyone on this thread, in which case...nah, you still sound like a left-wing conspiracy theorist nut-job.
Click to expand...

Who says I was responding to any particular post in this thread?

In fact, why do you even respond? We all know that you're "Independent" and already have your opinion set.

If it (being the tea party) hadn't been brought up by now, why shouldn't/couldn't it be brought up right now?

I think it's very interesting how many on the right wing have this view, whether it be on this website, on facebook, am radio, foxnews, etc. that the OWS protests have been harmful. I wouldn't doubt that some have been.

However, the defaults that we faced a few months back by the tea party wackos? And now the problems we face today? Sure, there might be some people that want a default to happen, or support the tea party efforts to run our country off a cliff (I wouldn't be surprised if LG, as an independent, was one of them). But the rest of us don't want a default. And the rest of us find the no rise in taxes pledge ridiculous. Most of Americans want both new revenues and cuts, not just cuts.
 
I addressed the possibility of you not addressing someone in the thread, moran. Please read, then respond.

And you brought up the teaparty way early in this thread. It is nothing new. We all know you are blindly dem and already have your opinions set by the party line dogma. Nothing new there.
 
The Thriller said:
However, the defaults that we faced a few months back by the tea party wackos? And now the problems we face today? Sure, there might be some people that want a default to happen, or support the tea party efforts to run our country off a cliff (I wouldn't be surprised if LG, as an independent, was one of them). But the rest of us don't want a default. And the rest of us find the no rise in taxes pledge ridiculous. Most of Americans want both new revenues and cuts, not just cuts.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that default is really the only solution . Not unilateral default, but multilateral default and multilateral debt forgiveness across the board. Every bank, every government, every private company, every individual in the entire world that has ever lent or borrowed money would have to agree to pretend those contracts never existed and start over with a clean slate. That is how absurd all this debt talk nonsense and all these different protest groups are. You cannot fix the problem unless you do what I said above and the above is never going to happen for obvious reasons.

What's OWS going to do about derivatives? They are already out there, they are already worthless, and with MF Global going bankrupt, not being able to cover even 900 million of personal accounts, and the CME refusing to provide any backup funds because they know it's just going to be one of many in they near future, they are admitting it's a ponzi scheme by their actions. They are admitting that if enough people wanted to call in their contracts, they wouldn't receive anything in return. What happens when a $1.5 Quadrillion ponzi scheme blows up? We're about to find out.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vV4zw-cus
 
Can anyone list the objectives of the OWS movement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top