Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think? Are those jive turkey politicians tryin to keep the brotha-man down?

Originally posted by Lestov16
What do you think? Are those jive turkey politicians tryin to keep the brotha-man down? My opinion, yes. But it could just be politics.

reports are that the FBI was on it.

Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement.

To me, it seems like it would cause the opposite reaction. I will incite more anger. They will go apesh*t.


The people that will take the brunt of their anger, though, will be small business owners. It's stupid. I hate modern protestors and their protesting: they always do it wrong.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement. Well let me tell you as someone who lives in Oakland and is inconvenienced by this "occupy" bullshit on a daily basis that it's hardly "pro-corporate bias". The Occupy movement is a failure. The lack of leadership and lack of cohesion between its members has resulted in the Occupy movement becoming nothing more than an opportunity for people to act a fool and for disease to spread. In Oakland alone people have been killed, not by the police, but by protestors. There have been numerous assaults, lootings,shootings, and acts of arson. The camps that the protestors have set up have failed every single sanitation test made by health inspectors since their conception. If you ask twenty different Occupy protestors what goal the protestors hope to achieve, you'll get twenty different answers because there is no unified goal beyond the vague of notion of "down with the banks".

Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?


Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.


Also, I consider the right to protest for a fee of $10 (a license to protest) to be unconstitutional, as well: it technically falls under "disparate impact" and should be made illegal. What if you're protesting the government not protecting your job (lol...that's what they are doing). Then purchasing a $10 license to protest creates a "disparate impact" on one group but not others. However, that impact is not protected by race, religion, gender, bla bla bla. So it is not disparate impact. But it IS because one group would be much more affected by that local law than other groups. It just so happens that the groups are not protected under Article VI or VII (Civil Rights).


Does anyone know of a way that the $10 fee for protesting could be considered unconstitutional? To me, it falls under the same lines as the "grandfather clause" for black voters. Not as harsh and mean...but still similar in that it prevents certain people from exercising their constitutional rights.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.Not good enough, imo. You have the right to assemble and protest peacefully. You aren't guaranteed the right to inflict violence, chaos and fear on to others.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You aren't guaranteed the right to inflict... fear on to others. Subjective. Foolish to be covered.

leadership seems to be their biggest problem... they should get one point across like don't buy anything that is on the stock market

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.

No its not.

They have the right to protest. That right does not shield them from other things they do while protesting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I consider the right to protest for a fee of $10 (a license to protest) to be unconstitutional, as well: it technically falls under "disparate impact" and should be made illegal.

Absolutely.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does anyone know of a way that the $10 fee for protesting could be considered unconstitutional? To me, it falls under the same lines as the "grandfather clause" for black voters. Not as harsh and mean...but still similar in that it prevents certain people from exercising their constitutional rights.

It clearly abridges the right of the people to protest.

I wonder how many of the people particpating in the "occupy" movement have actually taken the time and and responsibility to vote.

Seems to me, that if they were that serious at changing the way things are, they'd take the first basic steep given to them by living in a democratic system.

they have to participate in a system that they find corrupt before they can criticize it?

that seems futile, at best

The System is partly corrupt because of the apathy of those who are too lazy to particpate.

Do you think that politicians would ignore the masses if the masses actually voted? Politicians play to what gets them electected or re-ellected.

I'm not so much saying that "they have to participate in a system that they find corrupt before they can criticize it", I am saying that they have to realize that by not participating, they all share responsibility in the system not working, and if you are not going to take the time to particpate in the system, then don't expect much from it.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Do you think that politicians would ignore the masses if the masses actually voted?

yes, I do vehemently and with considerable empirical data from what people who do vote already get from their politicians

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Politicians play to what gets them electected or re-ellected.

yes, which is in almost every case, campaign funding

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I do vehemently and with considerable empirical data from what people who do vote already get from their politicians


If 60% of registers voters turn out and vote, the results are based on what the majority of that 60% of the population want. Now when a considerable chunk of those who vote are of particular financial bracket, those folks get what they want.

I am not saying that the system works, I am saying that if you are going to try to change the system, at least trying to use the opportunties that it lends you is the first step.

Is the system fair? No, nothing is fair, fair does not exist. Does sitting in a tent telling others that the system is not fair help, I don't think so (and they may prove me wrong).

You do need to factor in misinformation and propaganda though.

In your opinion who should these protesters vote for?

Not sure how the system works in other places, but in Canada, spoiling your vote is a protest vote. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your vote and say so.

If a certain percentage spoil their vote(not sure what the percentage has to be) then you have to reboot the campaign. If people exceercised that choice, maybe you'd see candidates that actually represent you. We'll never know because it will never happen. I'm just saying that I see these people go to the extreme of living in tents in zero degree weather, but I an interested in how many voted.

If you don't particpate in a democracy, do you expect others to make it work for you?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Not sure how the system works in other places, but in Canada, spoiling your vote is a protest vote. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your vote and say so.

If a certain percentage spoil their vote(not sure what the percentage has to be) then you have to reboot the campaign. If people exceercised that choice, maybe you'd see candidates that actually represent you. We'll never know because it will never happen. I'm just saying that I see these people go to the extreme of living in tents in zero degree weather, but I an interested in how many voted.

If you don't particpate in a democracy, do you expect others to make it work for you?

There are other ways of participating in a democracy than using your one vote though. And not every place has that "spoil your vote" option. I agree of course that they should vote (if they have a feasible option) or run for office themselves, but that's not the only thing you can do, another option, at least in the western world, is peaceful protest, another may be lobbying.

I don't know what the numbers of Occupy Protesters is in terms of voting participation is though, I'd actually assume it to be higher than average...

I agree that voting isn't the only way to particpate, I'm just saying that it's the first step.

People need to really educate themselves more before they vote. They just don't though

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Subjective. Foolish to be covered. I'm glad you agree, little brother.

Anyway; I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people didn't vote. It's common knowledge that the younger generation of voters vote the least in the US; and the hardcore occupy people tend to be angry yuppies. lol.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well let me tell you as someone who lives in Oakland and is inconvenienced by this "occupy" bullshit on a daily basis that it's hardly "pro-corporate bias". The Occupy movement is a failure. The lack of leadership and lack of cohesion between its members has resulted in the Occupy movement becoming nothing more than an opportunity for people to act a fool and for disease to spread. In Oakland alone people have been killed, not by the police, but by protestors. There have been numerous assaults, lootings,shootings, and acts of arson. The camps that the protestors have set up have failed every single sanitation test made by health inspectors since their conception. If you ask twenty different Occupy protestors what goal the protestors hope to achieve, you'll get twenty different answers because there is no unified goal beyond the vague of notion of "down with the banks".

Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?
Oh please. It is a right to protest. If someone commits a crime, then you can arrest the person who did it; you can't outlaw someone from protesting because other people did something bad. Positively Orwellian. Even if their goal is 100% stupid (I don't agree at all), but, even then, they have the right. Tea Partiers protest for absolutely idiotic causes. I would never dream of telling them they should be banned from doing so.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh please. It is a right to protest. If someone commits a crime, then you can arrest the person who did it; you can't outlaw someone from protesting because other people did something bad. Positively Orwellian. Even if their goal is 100% stupid (I don't agree at all), but, even then, they have the right. Tea Partiers protest for absolutely idiotic causes. I would never dream of telling them they should be banned from doing so. You don't have the righ to protest when your protesting is infringing on other people's rights. The fact that you would even say something as silly as "just arrest the person who did it" shows that you have no idea what's even going on. Please, come to Oakland, then tell me what should and shouldn't be done. I think I have a far better idea of what the situation is here than you do, no offense.

I feel that the Occupy movement started with a good message and decent intentions but has since been usurped by idiots who don't actually know what, if anything, they're actually protesting. Which is a shame, because the original message of the group had potential to catch on.

I agree.

On the flipside though, I think the government cracking down on these protests is exactly what it needs to get more momentum going. It's too passive right now, mostly because the resistance against it has been sparing. I think that with more hostility the movement will become more focused. It'd be great if we had something resembling Libya's revolution, imo. It's going to take some severe violence for any substantial part of the American system to change.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If 60% of registers voters turn out and vote, the results are based on what the majority of that 60% of the population want.

I don't agree with this statement

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If 60% of registers voters turn out and vote, the results are based on what the majority of that 60% of the population want. Now when a considerable chunk of those who vote are of particular financial bracket, those folks get what they want.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. With the voting system we have in the US no matter how many people vote the results is unlikely to result in what the majority of people want. That assumes a system with zero corruption and zero ability to influence voters, as well.

What would you define as "what want"? I mean, if 51% of Americans vote for candidate A, and Candidate A wins as a result, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans got what they want?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What would you define as "what want"? I mean, if 51% of Americans vote for candidate A, and Candidate A wins as a result, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans got what they want?

That assumes those voters highest choice was A, which Arrow demonstrated is unlikely.

Say you have A, B, and C to vote for and 100 people voting. 45 vote for A, 45 vote for B (these are our democrat and republican) while 9 vote for C (say Ron Paul). Now the last person voting wants C to be president but if he casts that vote C doesn't win, so he votes for B because he considers A to be the worst.

Arrow's Theorem is the general case of this conflict and a proof that is more likely than you'd think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What would you define as "what want"? I mean, if 51% of Americans vote for candidate A, and Candidate A wins as a result, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans got what they want?

If the candidate did whatever they promised, perhaps, but even then it's not what the 51% want, but what they want the most out of the very, very limited options.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What would you define as "what want"? I mean, if 51% of Americans vote for candidate A, and Candidate A wins as a result, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans got what they want?
No, lots of people vote based on "the lesser of two evils". And the candidate they elect, is not anywhere close to what they wanted.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That assumes those voters highest choice was A, which Arrow demonstrated is unlikely.

Say you have A, B, and C to vote for and 100 people voting. 45 vote for A, 45 vote for B (these are our democrat and republican) while 9 vote for C (say Ron Paul). Now the last two people voting wants C to be president but if he casts that vote C doesn't win, so he votes for B because he considers A to be the worst.

Arrow's Theorem is the general case of this conflict and a proof that is more likely than you'd think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem From a certain point of view, one could argue that that one voter is still getting what he wants, as the person he didn't want to win most of all (B) still lost.

But, I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. Our voting system is definitely not perfect.

edit- stfu you two.

This guy has terrific and well explained videos on elections and the problems with certain systems (also in general):

s7tWHJfhiyo

lol @ the frozen frame with the animals.

I'll check it out when I get home.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You don't have the righ to protest when your protesting is infringing on other people's rights. The fact that you would even say something as silly as "just arrest the person who did it" shows that you have no idea what's even going on. Please, come to Oakland, then tell me what should and shouldn't be done. I think I have a far better idea of what the situation is here than you do, no offense.
There is an occupy movement in my town as well, and I have absolutely no problem with it. Please, come to Oregon and tell me occupy movements are bad. I think I have a far better idea of the situation here than you do. Also, don't the Occupy Oakland protesters themselves live in Oakland? Therefore, they have equal authority to yourself by this logic.

BTW, you DO have a right to protest, period. What rights are they infringing on? The "right to not be yelled at"? I don't see that in the constitution. The right to life? And yet, I see no statistics showing that murder rates increased with the occupy movement. I have seen those "protester murders" you are talking about, and they are nothing of the sort... people were being killed in Oakland before this movement, and unless that rate actually increases these murders are just business as usual, not some horrible epidemic brought on by protests.

Lastly, as Ben Franklin put it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
From a certain point of view, one could argue that that one voter is still getting what he wants, as the person he didn't want to win most of all (B) still lost.

But, I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. Our voting system is definitely not perfect.

It's actually a pretty serious problem that multiple countries are trying to fix. The fact that the single most hated candidate won't win except in very odd cases is not a value worth mentioning.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, you DO have a right to protest, period. What rights are they infringing on? The "right to not be yelled at"? I don't see that in the constitution.

Ninth amendment. If it doesn't say one doesn't have the right it means you do have the right.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lastly, as Ben Franklin put it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Good thing rights never ever ever come into conflict with one another.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What would you define as "what want"? I mean, if 51% of Americans vote for candidate A, and Candidate A wins as a result, wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans got what they want?

true, I meant "want" in a more abstract sort of "rational actor" theory of behaviour, not simply in terms of moment to moment desires people might have.

I'd suggest the disconnect even between what people express they want and what would be demonstrably good for themselves or the nation is in itself a terrible quality of voting (not that I have a suggestion that effectively replaces this, as my point wasn't "don't vote because I have a better idea" but rather "just because someone doesn't vote doesn't mean they can't have a valid criticism of the system". I also think you worded it in a perfect way, as people do vote for person A over person B, rather than (in general of course) any rational political motivations. Much of this stuff is well documented, and by in large, most people have absolutely no conception whatsoever of their own political beliefs, and vote for the candidate who conforms to a host of non-political based things.

Though, you do have a point. Short of suggesting there is massive fraud going on in every democratic system on the planet, there is some truth to the idea that if 60% of the people vote a certain way, that is what they will get, so long as we accept that the "wants" and "outcomes" that motivate or come from that behaviour can be entirely non-parsimonious (gotta put that education to some use) and in most cases are.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, what right? Not just some speculative "I claim I have it, therefore I do" right.

I don't consider "I say this person says I have this right" to be any more substantial.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What rights that have actually been upheld in court to supersede the 1st amendment, have these movements violated? Furthermore, we are talking about the mayors banning free assembly. So to do so, obviously, they need to give an actual good reason. What is this good reason?

They didn't ban assembly, IIRC, they banned blocking streets and then they shut down the park in general, not for any particular use. I think your previous argument establishes that they don't have the right to block streets because they feel like it or take over the park because they want to. The First Amendment is not a shield, if I decide to protest the government by killing a man the murder part of it is still illegal. If you illegally shut down a street while protesting shutting down the street is still a crime.

As Bloomberg himself put it: Where is the constitutional right to camp in Zucotti Park? Where is the constitutional right to make the park unusable for others?

You can call that an excuse (and it obviously is) but the argument is legally sound.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you illegally shut down a street while protesting shutting down the street is still a crime.

that is the paradox of protest though

if you can't protest in any way that impacts others, the only type of protests then are, by definition, entirely ineffective

Ghandi and MLK both caused major disruptions in their society, though, I accept the fact that civil disobedience was a deliberate strategy of theirs as opposed to the OWS group that seems to want to remain a law abiding movement...

Originally posted by inimalist
that is the paradox of protest though

if you can't protest in any way that impacts others, the only type of protests then are, by definition, entirely ineffective

And presumably its the justification for parade permits being required for certain kinds of protests. Without them the government would have to completely forbid any disruptive protest since it has responsibilities toward its other citizens.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ghandi and MLK both caused major disruptions in their society, though, I accept the fact that civil disobedience was a deliberate strategy of theirs as opposed to the OWS group that seems to want to remain a law abiding movement...

I accept civil disobedience as a form of protest but people need to accept that that's what it is. This is why (for example) Gog from Kingdom Come is a character I like very much. He kills the Joker just like everybody has always argued needs to be done and then lets himself be arrested for murder. I'm not arguing that OPY should cooperate with the police, especially in such a blatant push to get rid of them, only that they shouldn't be in denial about what they're doing.

When you break the law for a good reason you're still breaking the law and if the law exists for a reason (ie people are using those streets, people have the right not to be exploded by a mystical staff) the police are not being "facists" or somesuch when they come to arrest you, however hilariously Orwellian their uniforms may be.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And presumably its the justification for parade permits being required for certain kinds of protests. Without them the government would have to completely forbid any disruptive protest since it has responsibilities toward its other citizens.

that I think requires a tricky calculus about which rights come before others

for instance, I don't think the right to get home from work without hitting traffic is more important than the right to peacefully assemble for protest, nor do I think someone that the need to enforce park curfews is more important.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I accept civil disobedience as a form of protest but people need to accept that that's what it is. This is why (for example) Gog from Kingdom Come is a character I like very much. He kills the Joker just like everybody has always argued needs to be done and then lets himself be arrested for murder. I'm not arguing that OPY should cooperate with the police, especially in such a blatant push to get rid of them, only that they shouldn't be in denial.

When you break the law for a good reason you're still breaking the law and if the law exists for a reason (ie people are using those streets, people have the right not to be exploded by a mystical staff) the police are not being "facists" or somesuch when they come to arrest you, however hilariously Orwellian their uniforms may be.

I think we agree

I don't understand why deliberate disobedience has fallen out of fashion for protesting, as I'd much rather participate in something that actually brings an issue to the people and forces them to at least acknowledge it.

I'm sure I've told this story before, but during the 2008(?) Israeli military action in Palestine/Lebanon a group of students had set up a march from one university to another in the city, literally a distance of 1 and a half blocks. When I asked them if they had plans to shut down the street they were walking along (one of the busiest ones in the city, would have been a major deal) they were like, "no, we have these permits we got from the police, etc".

which like, cool... but I think it totally misses the point entirely. How effective is it for one group of angry people to yell at a whole bunch of angry people who all agree with eachother, then go home to talk about how productive the yelling was?

The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Where do you get your news?

Anywhere except your sources troll.

(back to ignore)

what do you mean by black eye?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No its not.

They have the right to protest. That right does not shield them from other things they do while protesting.

You can incorrectly apply a meaning to my words but it is quite obvious the "right to protest" is the point I was making.


Vandalizing a local business is not covered in your right to protest.

Let's stick with context, please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can incorrectly apply a meaning to my words but it is quite obvious the "right to protest" is the point I was making.

Um, no it's not?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Vandalizing a local business is not covered in your right to protest.

Let's stick with context, please.

The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Um, no it's not?

Um, yeah it is.

You're taking my response out of context, still, even after I clarified for you.

Context is clearly defined by the tangent conversation I included:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.


Also, I consider the right to protest...

Oh...shiiiit. There it is.

Well, it was a nice try on your part to troll me, Sym. I guess better luck next time, eh?





The right to destroy property, block streets, and so forth. That's obviously not protected. The right to protest, as the context of my post clearly indicates for you, is.


Any other meanings you want to apply to my post are explicitely wrong as that was not my intention nor is it the context.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.

Only if you chose the path that contradicts my clarification and context of my post. Since I have shown you why you are applying an incorrect context, this discussion is not needed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.
Yeah, and mayor Bloomberg is a complete liar when he says that. They complied with all requests to clean up the park. What mayor Bloomberg says, is that the park is only for "passive" use, not "active" use of the 1st amendment. AKA, doing things mayor Bloomberg likes, because that distinction is nonsense. So if you are some passive robot who only does what the mayor tells you to, then you're fine; if you should actively oppose the mayor, well, then, we have a problem. Opposing Bloomberg, we can't have that! Let alone Wall Street who has made him a billionaire. Bloomberg made every cent he has on Wall Street's graces, so, I can see why he is a little worried about a movement against them.

Also note that when under court order to allow the protesters back, Bloomberg REFUSED to obey the ruling. Instead, he ignored it until another court order came out that was more favorable. So whether it is constitutional or not Bloomberg doesn't care; he will not comply to any orders against him.

Bloomberg has also arrested reporters trying to cover the eviction. What is your excuse for this? So in addition to completely disregarding freedom of speech, he also does not care much for freedom of the press. Are the reporters "vandalizing" too?

So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

Is that literal, as in they actually want to shut Wallstreet down to help the economy?

If so --and bear with me since I know little about economics-- isn't that like trying to cure a skin infection by cutting your jugular?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Also note that when under court order to allow the protesters back, Bloomberg REFUSED to obey the ruling. Instead, he ignored it until another court order came out that was more favorable.

I wasn't aware of that. That would make Bloomberg decision to shut down the park indefensible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bloomberg has also arrested reporters trying to cover the eviction. What is your excuse for this? So in addition to completely disregarding freedom of speech, he also does not care much for freedom of the press. Are the reporters "vandalizing" too?

I never mentioned the reporters, though, yes, I agree with you that forbidding their entry is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

one of the problems with the movement is that when "they" say that, it means every possible interpretation of the phrase with no pervasive coherence

For some of them, yes, I think they want it to not exist any more, and I would agree, that probably isn't the plan that would produce the most immediate benefit to the economy lolz

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

Is that literal, as in they actually want to shut Wallstreet down to help the economy?

If so --and bear with me since I know little about economics-- isn't that like trying to cure a skin infection by cutting your jugular?
What I think most of them mean, is that they don't want wall street to get richer at our expense, like by crashing a market while also shorting it and getting rich in the process.

Down with wallstreet doesn't mean they want to kill it; just make it stop ruling our government. Like if I said "down with the king", I would be equally fine if he abdicated.

My roommate watches Fox News, its hilarious and cringeworthy how many different ways their pundits and guests try to spin it to indict Obama.

"They're socialists inspired by Obama"
"They're honest Americans enraged at Obama's unethical policies that have gotten us into this mess"
"They're both at the same time. Obama sux." (Sarah Palin's position more or less, at least as I heard it)

Not that I'm surprised.

WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Where did you get this "Union organizers" idea from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where do you get your news?

Fox News.

Originally posted by Robtard
Where did you get this "Union organizers" idea from?

Fox News.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
In Oakland alone people have been killed, not by the police, but by protestors. There have been numerous assaults, lootings,shootings, and acts of arson. The camps that the protestors have set up have failed every single sanitation test made by health inspectors since their conception. If you ask twenty different Occupy protestors what goal the protestors hope to achieve, you'll get twenty different answers because there is no unified goal beyond the vague of notion of "down with the banks".

Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?


Wouldnt be surprised if it were undercover cops.

DmtCsXrYUm8

Originally posted by Deja~vu
My opinion, yes. But it could just be politics.

It is normanly.

I really wish this movement would have come to something. I actually joined it and attgended meetings and rallies but it appears pretty much dead

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Wouldnt be surprised if it were undercover cops.

What, the entire Occupy movement?