Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[Phatscotty]

And that whole photo showing people using corporate tools to fight corporations, those who use any government services at all are in no position to protest against government, if we are to assume that logic is correct.

it was just for kicks but I am glad so much discussion has been generated by it. That what I love about this place, post a photo and get numerous different opinions.

On your point, I would make the case the people who pay for government services have more a say than people who do not. I also think people who do not contribute or contribute very little to government services yet survive wholly or mostly off said gov't services should factor that reality into what they perceive as what is fair and what is not fair/be more grateful. I say these things because it is possible that the people who pay all the taxes can simply decide to stop paying by stopping work/earning. The rich can do this, and if we piss them off enough they just might organize and prove a point. Then the 99% will all have nothing, and finally we will be "equal".

[Phatscotty]

This was posted by one of my Facebook friends:

Click image to enlarge.

Well that sure shows who's got "the man" on their, now doesn't it.

Whatever country this is in, the one with all the flags is winning.


The first arrest for a crime at a Tea Party by a TP person/plant is going to be huge news looped every hour on the hour and dominate the news cycle for over a week. Ed Schultz will be doing his show from the location, Anderson Cooper will be there in the schools giving speeches on coping with a world of right-wing terrorist hatred, and Obama will probably hold a rare 4th press conference (previously used only for the Arizona Shooting and the Stimulus package)

[natty dread]

And that whole photo showing people using corporate tools to fight corporations, those who use any government services at all are in no position to protest against government, if we are to assume that logic is correct.

I said that first!

[thegreekdog]

I like Greecepwns list. However, I will say that I'm not sure Wall Street is the best place to protest corporate cronyism; maybe DC is a better place to go to be effective. That's why I'm not entirely convinced that the original protestors knew what they were protesting. Furthermore, it's THREE FUCKING YEARS after the bailouts! Why did they wait this long?

So, here's my boiled down thing:

(1) Occupy Protestors (originals) - These people had some sort of general anger toward the wealthy and their interaction with the government.
(2) New Occupy Protestors - These people are capitalizing and co-opting the message to make it anti-capitalism and to try to help the president win reelection.
(3) Tea Party Protestors (originals) - These people had some sort of general anger toward the government and their interaction with special interest groups, including the wealthy. They had a better original message.
(4) The New Tea Party - Co-opted by the Republican Party.

I think the co-opting of the Occupy Protests happened a lot quicker than the co-opting of the Tea Party, but that's pretty much the only difference.

Also, I'm extremely disappointed, although not surprised by the partisan reaction. The message from the media should be either that both the Occupy Protesters and the Tea Party protestors believe in the same thing (i.e. special interests have too much control over the government). Alternatively, the message from the media should have been consistent. The Olbermanns and Krugmans (and all the anti-Tea Party people on this website) should be as critical of Occupy Wall Street protests as they are of the Tea Partiers. The Hannities (and all the pro-Tea Party people on this website) should be supportive of Occupy Wall Street as they are of the Tea Partiers. Instead, we have partisanism (Phatscotty at least gave the Occupy people a chance by going to see it first hand). Hell, I lump myself in there as well, although to be fair I never criticized the Occupy message, just the protestors themselves.

[Phatscotty]

I like Greecepwns list. However, I will say that I'm not sure Wall Street is the best place to protest corporate cronyism; maybe DC is a better place to go to be effective. That's why I'm not entirely convinced that the original protestors knew what they were protesting. Furthermore, it's THREE FUCKING YEARS after the bailouts! Why did they wait this long?

So, here's my boiled down thing:

(1) Occupy Protestors (originals) - These people had some sort of general anger toward the wealthy and their interaction with the government.
(2) New Occupy Protestors - These people are capitalizing and co-opting the message to make it anti-capitalism and to try to help the president win reelection.
(3) Tea Party Protestors (originals) - These people had some sort of general anger toward the government and their interaction with special interest groups, including the wealthy. They had a better original message.
(4) The New Tea Party - Co-opted by the Republican Party.

I think the co-opting of the Occupy Protests happened a lot quicker than the co-opting of the Tea Party, but that's pretty much the only difference.

Also, I'm extremely disappointed, although not surprised by the partisan reaction. The message from the media should be either that both the Occupy Protesters and the Tea Party protestors believe in the same thing (i.e. special interests have too much control over the government). Alternatively, the message from the media should have been consistent. The Olbermanns and Krugmans (and all the anti-Tea Party people on this website) should be as critical of Occupy Wall Street protests as they are of the Tea Partiers. The Hannities (and all the pro-Tea Party people on this website) should be supportive of Occupy Wall Street as they are of the Tea Partiers. Instead, we have partisanism (Phatscotty at least gave the Occupy people a chance by going to see it first hand). Hell, I lump myself in there as well, although to be fair I never criticized the Occupy message, just the protestors themselves.

You ask why it took so long when the bailouts were 3 years ago? Because the brotesters thought the stimulus was going to work and save the economy and they had to wait longer than everyone else to see the Stimulus plan was a failure and actually made things worse.

How about this tho...

[natty dread]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

[rockfist]

Technically the human race does not need any individual to continue so the rich would fall under that umbrella.

[rockfist]

Rockfist, it's still a shite choice to vote Republican too. Both parties continue the corporate state, and both perpetuate the National Security state. There's just seems to be no end to this.

I'm not on the verge of joining the Occupiers because they have no idea what they're doing. Much of their ideology is 8 steps backwards into further government authority including the higher social costs of unintended consequences which are bound to follow.

Give this country another strong recession plus an exogenous military attack (i.e. China via proxy wars), and we'll be living in that national security state in no time. The future is bleak, and the gap between choices will become wider.

I agree voting Republican is a bad choice, but until we can make a party other than the Republican Party or the Democrat Party viable, it will from my point of view usually remain the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils will always result in evil.

[Phatscotty]

Rockfist, it's still a shite choice to vote Republican too. Both parties continue the corporate state, and both perpetuate the National Security state. There's just seems to be no end to this.

I'm not on the verge of joining the Occupiers because they have no idea what they're doing. Much of their ideology is 8 steps backwards into further government authority including the higher social costs of unintended consequences which are bound to follow.

Give this country another strong recession plus an exogenous military attack (i.e. China via proxy wars), and we'll be living in that national security state in no time. The future is bleak, and the gap between choices will become wider.

I agree voting Republican is a bad choice, but until we can make a party other than the Republican Party or the Democrat Party viable, it will from my point of view usually remain the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils will always result in evil.

Or, we can reform the Republican party. I think it's obvious we have made a huge impact in this area and we can reform it further in 2012, and I think this is highly likely. If the Democrats can straighten up their party a bit I think we can get back on track.

[Army of GOD]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

There are a lot of people that earned their money. Then, there are the Paris Hilton's of the world who don't even have to life a finger and make more in one year than most people do in their life.

The problem with this country is that the people are too stupid to do this correctly. They're trying to get change through government, which will never, ever happen the way lobbyists control it. Change won't happen in this country unless there's a violent revolution, I think. People are too afraid to risk their lives in something like that today, so it's never going to happen.

[radiojake]

The problem with this country is that the people are too stupid to do this correctly. They're trying to get change through government, which will never, ever happen the way lobbyists control it. Change won't happen in this country unless there's a violent revolution, I think. People are too afraid to risk their lives in something like that today, so it's never going to happen.

This - - Peaceful protests end up nowhere and play into government hands - Why do you think they allow it? Pacifism does not imply love and Gandhi was lucky that the British were decimated after WWII

[isaiah40]

I agree voting Republican is a bad choice, but until we can make a party other than the Republican Party or the Democrat Party viable, it will from my point of view usually remain the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils will always result in evil.

There is always the Constitution Party, which is on the ballots in a lot of the states. For example, there is a Constitution Party member running for Lt Governor next year. She was a member of the Republican Party for years until she realized that they can't be reformed from the inside.

[spurgistan]

The problem with this country is that the people are too stupid to do this correctly. They're trying to get change through government, which will never, ever happen the way lobbyists control it. Change won't happen in this country unless there's a violent revolution, I think. People are too afraid to risk their lives in something like that today, so it's never going to happen.

This - - Peaceful protests end up nowhere and play into government hands - Why do you think they allow it? Pacifism does not imply love and Gandhi was lucky that the British were decimated after WWII

I agree with this to somewhat (the American Civil Rights movement sticks out as a nonviolent revolution carried out in the most prosperous society in human history), except that a fundamental antecedent of social change is bringing light to injustices. Most people in the United States are simply unenlightened as to the extent and nature of inequality that persists. People think that, if they work hard, they can and will join the American ruling class. If the 99% demonstrations succeed in imparting how dead the "American Dream" is now (not that it ever really existed in the 1st place) they will have done something of immense value.

[Army of GOD]

The problem with this country is that the people are too stupid to do this correctly. They're trying to get change through government, which will never, ever happen the way lobbyists control it. Change won't happen in this country unless there's a violent revolution, I think. People are too afraid to risk their lives in something like that today, so it's never going to happen.

This - - Peaceful protests end up nowhere and play into government hands - Why do you think they allow it? Pacifism does not imply love and Gandhi was lucky that the British were decimated after WWII

I agree with this to somewhat (the American Civil Rights movement sticks out as a nonviolent revolution carried out in the most prosperous society in human history), except that a fundamental antecedent of social change is bringing light to injustices. Most people in the United States are simply unenlightened as to the extent and nature of inequality that persists. People think that, if they work hard, they can and will join the American ruling class. If the 99% demonstrations succeed in imparting how dead the "American Dream" is now (not that it ever really existed in the 1st place) they will have done something of immense value.

The Civil Rights movement worked BECAUSE it was a social change. This isn't a social change, this is a lot deeper than that because it's literally deep in our government. Politicians like Obama can just use Occupy Wall Street as propaganda for more "change". I think we all agree that the two parties at the top have only special interest groups in their agenda to help.

I mean, just from this thread, there's a lot of people that think OWS is just a bunch of hippie douchebags that smoke pot and be lazy (or maybe that's just me). We're gonna need something a lot larger than that.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

Define "the rich."

[natty dread]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

Define "the rich."

Those guys who have enough money that laws don't apply to them - who can just pay to get the laws changed when necessary.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem with this country is that the people are too stupid to do this correctly. They're trying to get change through government, which will never, ever happen the way lobbyists control it. Change won't happen in this country unless there's a violent revolution, I think. People are too afraid to risk their lives in something like that today, so it's never going to happen.

This - - Peaceful protests end up nowhere and play into government hands - Why do you think they allow it? Pacifism does not imply love and Gandhi was lucky that the British were decimated after WWII

This won't happen until there's a shift in ideologies. Currently, being "free markets," or "against crony capitalism," or "against appeals to the Government for nearly everything" hardly amounts to 5% of the population--probably even less. That, and it takes awhile to figure out how that all works, so it's not yet simplified enough for mass consumption.

Libertarians tend to restrict themselves from violent revolutions because of their nonaggression axiom, but if the government is truly perceived as the aggressor, then they're free to resist...

Anarchists are insignificant...

And socialists and communists and their lighter shades today tend to appeal to the government, or their version of it.

Basically, we're stuck with status quo-ists, nationalists, and statists, who belong to Democratic and Republican parties, political actors and nongovernmental actors alike. That's pretty much everyone. In the coming years, China will probably become more emblazoned to take on a larger global role, and this will sometimes butt heads with US plans. I can only see this as leading to heightened sentiments of US nationalism.

A revolution would most likely occur after a financial collapse of the US economic empire. Maybe the Chinese could pull that off while mitigating the after effects from the decrease in exports, but I doubt it. (isn't that just pessimistic?)

Currently, I'm internally debating between making a lot of money and not caring about it, or I'll become more publicly influential and try to change mindsets from there.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

Define "the rich."

Those guys who have enough money that laws don't apply to them - who can just pay to get the laws changed when necessary.

So, those guys who earn more than $10 million a year? If yes, than why assume that they're all morally decrepit?

[natty dread]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

Define "the rich."

Those guys who have enough money that laws don't apply to them - who can just pay to get the laws changed when necessary.

So, those guys who earn more than $10 million a year? If yes, than why assume that they're all morally decrepit?

Because power corrupts.

Seriously. There have been scientific studies done where people were divided in two groups - one group was put in a fake position of "authority" over others - and the other group wasn't. Even though the power & authority over others that these people experienced was completely imaginary, it still negatively affected the ability of this group to feel empathy towards other people, and increased greed, risk-taking behaviour, selfishness etc.

(I can try to find a link if you're interested.)

So is it then any wonder that when you give someone a position where he has direct authority over hundreds of people, and makes thousands of times more money than the average person, that it starts to get into his head? You start to see other people as pawns, objects for your amusement, rather than people.

And that's why we need to get rid of those people who think they are somehow entitled to own 1000:s of times more than the rest of us.

[Army of GOD]

Currently, I'm internally debating between making a lot of money and not caring about it, or I'll become more publicly influential and try to change mindsets from there.

Well, if you chose the second one, I'm down. I'm much more of a "lead the charge" officer. Sort of like Gandalf













You have to supply me with horses and a magic staff, though.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJv7sGCcig

Here is a message from the OWS I can get with 100%. Actually he might not really be an occupier, as he gets a lot of shit from the crowd and I think one girl with a crazy wig starts pulling people away from him. Worth a view.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's so funny. There's always a bunch of those wealth-apologists who keep defending the rich guys... for what? Why? They defend the rich because they are under the illusion that if they just work hard enough, they too could one day be one of those rich guys. When in reality, the rich are already so obscenely, unbelievably wealthy & powerful they pretty much own all the rest of you. So they can do whatever they want, and if anyone criticizes them... then you're a "dirty commie hippie" who "just wants to get everything for free".

Ok, I don't want to get free stuff. I want to work for my living. So can I now say that there's absolutely no good reason why some people should be allowed to own 1000 times more stuff than other people? I mean, why should they? Are they better, more productive people? No, in most cases they just hurt the rest of us.

Why do we need the rich?

Define "the rich."

Those guys who have enough money that laws don't apply to them - who can just pay to get the laws changed when necessary.

So, those guys who earn more than $10 million a year? If yes, than why assume that they're all morally decrepit?

Because power corrupts.

Seriously. There have been scientific studies done where people were divided in two groups - one group was put in a fake position of "authority" over others - and the other group wasn't. Even though the power & authority over others that these people experienced was completely imaginary, it still negatively affected the ability of this group to feel empathy towards other people, and increased greed, risk-taking behaviour, selfishness etc.

(I can try to find a link if you're interested.)

So is it then any wonder that when you give someone a position where he has direct authority over hundreds of people, and makes thousands of times more money than the average person, that it starts to get into his head? You start to see other people as pawns, objects for your amusement, rather than people.

And that's why we need to get rid of those people who think they are somehow entitled to own 1000:s of times more than the rest of us.

I'd love to read the study and see how accurately it applies to millionaires. Seems like the experiment may not be factoring in enough of reality. Next, we can look at studies on how much people with higher incomes donate to charities, local communities, etc.

Until then, what are the consequences of "getting rid of these people"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Currently, I'm internally debating between making a lot of money and not caring about it, or I'll become more publicly influential and try to change mindsets from there.

Well, if you chose the second one, I'm down. I'm much more of a "lead the charge" officer. Sort of like Gandalf




You have to supply me with horses and a magic staff, though.

How about 2 Shetland ponies and a broken broom painted white?

[natty dread]

I'd love to read the study

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/12/1663.abstract
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011007.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35836844/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... hemselves/
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 58,00.html
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/med ... nkleef.cfm

Until then, what are the consequences of "getting rid of these people"?

I don't mean literally "getting rid of them", as in shooting them in the head or something. I mean getting rid of the concept of allowing a small group of people own a ridiculously disproportionate amount of wealth relative to other people. There should be some limitations to how much you're allowed to own. I don't necessarily want to abolish the concept of private property, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

The consequences of such, I believe, would be beneficial for most.

[Night Strike]

I don't mean literally "getting rid of them", as in shooting them in the head or something. I mean getting rid of the concept of allowing a small group of people own a ridiculously disproportionate amount of wealth relative to other people. There should be some limitations to how much you're allowed to own. I don't necessarily want to abolish the concept of private property, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

The consequences of such, I believe, would be beneficial for most.

No, a line does not need to be drawn. If you did not earn that money, you have no right to take it away from someone who did. You are NOT entitled to that money. If you want to make that amount of money yourself, then create a product or begin an industry that will be able to make that amount of money. Even better, you'll actually get to succeed in taking away the money from the rich person if you enter a competitive market with him and put out a better product.