Pimp'N at Occupy America Rallies

I present to you; the Bonus Marchers of 1930. Nearly 50,000 ex-soldiers and their families descended upon Washington DC to lobby for an early release of bonus funds promised in 1924 for World War I soldiers. For six months they camped across the street from the White House where Herbert Hoover could see them. They did not allow poor behavior, they punished it. They set up their tents in neat rows with streets and side streets. They set up committees to oversee the cooking, the toliets, and the law. They were respectful to the police and to passing citizens. They had dignity and the empathy of the American people. The OWS could learn a real lesson of life in the Bonus Marchers but it seems they don't teach in history classes anymore.

I saw a video the other day where an organizer for OWS stood up and told his people to stop pissing in the street and stop crapping in the park. I don't think this was ever necessary with the Tea Party. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I present to you; the Bonus Marchers of 1930. Nearly 50,000 ex-soldiers and their families descended upon Washington DC to lobby for an early release of bonus funds promised in 1924 for World War I soldiers. For six months they camped across the street from the White House where Herbert Hoover could see them. They did not allow poor behavior, they punished it. They set up their tents in neat rows with streets and side streets. They set up committees to oversee the cooking, the toliets, and the law. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You offer an interesting perspective of how peaceful demos could be done, but might i add a few additional points to the debate?The Bonus March, e.g., was a very homogenous mass of people and it was extremely specific demands that related to specific people only. Who probably are more "birds of a feather" than the OWS crowd .

OWS is something that relates to all kinds of people of all kinds of background and of course only the one with erratic behaviour stick out. That can`t be news to you :-). Plus, you don`t need to forget the marketing strategies of paid "vandalizers" from opponent parties present at all such demonstrations to intentionally degrade the movement.

I was protesting in Austria against the right wing government around "Haider" that established a while back. Everyone was completely peaceful , nothing happened until some unidentified crowd with masks came, attacked the police forces for absolutely NO REASON, made a mess, got in the news and then dissappeared and vanished in air. Then of course the protestors were all violent extreme left wing communists. Hello? It`s easy mathematics. News focus on aberratic behaviour and not on what "really" happened. No one would buy a copy of a newspaper when they write that actually nothing has happened. Is that comprehensible?

As to the Bonus March, I reread the march on google, as i did not know anything about it, and i saw there was violence as well. Police and i guess even military violence against the protestors. It is nice that the marchers were a nice mass of people who played by rules, but i still think you have a little idealistic views. Maybe i am wrong. You tell me :-)

Plus :
shitting in park and peeing on streets: as far as i am aware off - the protestors set up camps - which got destroyed immidiately by the police. So obviously they simply did not "let" them put up proper methods of discharging garbage and waste.
Look at these photos.
I am not sure what happened at the "Bonus march" but as i recall from googling it right now, they also had their camp sites torn apart by police and the riots became violent with deaths. So? Not so much difference......

The accusations happened a lot even when the evidence was missing. Originally Posted by Laz

Ok then lets say Tea party is at least hypocrites at best. Look at that poster: Here you can see blatant evidence that the tea party is exactly doing what they accuse others of doing: namely "playing with fears of naive people" - i mean put americas most hated and feared politics on either side of your agenda and all come gather to you really scared :-)) Easy , right? So, i wonder who preys on fearful and naive now :-)) (lol)

I thinck I will go to one of these wall street rallies and snuggle me some ignorance.

I would agree that it is not their fault........it is their parents' fault for propagating ignorance. Originally Posted by dearhunter

I will agree that the vast majority of the people at these rallies are decent people. Ignorant, uneducated, and deluded but still decent.....The Tea Party followed the law and was made up of overwhelmingly hard working decent people. They were criticized, insulted and called racist without proof by the same people supporting the OWS groups. Where is the rationality in this. Originally Posted by Laz

i mean put americas most hated and feared politics on either side of your agenda and all come gather to you really scared :-)) Easy , right? So, i wonder who preys on fearful and naive now :-)) (lol) Originally Posted by ninasastri

Ohhhhhhhhh snap!

delete

Ok then lets say Tea party is at least hypocrites at best. Look at that poster: Here you can see blatant evidence that the tea party is exactly doing what they accuse others of doing: namely "playing with fears of naive people" - i mean put americas most hated and feared politics on either side of your agenda and all come gather to you really scared :-)) Easy , right? So, i wonder who preys on fearful and naive now :-)) (lol) Originally Posted by ninasastri

Was the sign extreme - yes, tacky - yes, inappropriate - yes, racist - no. That sign would have been used regardless of the race of the person whose policies they felt were wrong. I accept valid criticism for some of the things that have occured. Where I get disgusted is the racist accusations that occur whenever you disagree with the policies this president proposes.

My comments on your rates was intended to point out the stupidity of comparing your rates to anyone else and telling you to change. Of course your business model is different and you should be allowed to charge whatever you feel is appropriate. My point is that is true for all businesses and trying to penalize them because they are successful is counterproductive. Steve Jobs was a Billionaire because he made products that people wanted. Should we demonize him because he is in the 1%? What does that accomplish?

As for the objective of the OWS protesters, what are they? Please tell me what they want then we can have a rational discussion. I have not seen or read any cohesive objective from them. If there objective is income equality then they need to move to a country without a capitalistic economy. The problem is there has never been a country with income equality for everyone. Those in power always have much more than the others.

Was the sign extreme - yes, tacky - yes, inappropriate - yes, racist - no. That sign would have been used regardless of the race of the person whose policies they felt were wrong. I accept valid criticism for some of the things that have occured. Where I get disgusted is the racist accusations that occur whenever you disagree with the policies this president proposes.

My comments on your rates was intended to point out the stupidity of comparing your rates to anyone else and telling you to change. Of course your business model is different and you should be allowed to charge whatever you feel is appropriate. My point is that is true for all businesses and trying to penalize them because they are successful is counterproductive. Steve Jobs was a Billionaire because he made products that people wanted. Should we demonize him because he is in the 1%? What does that accomplish?

As for the objective of the OWS protesters, what are they? Please tell me what they want then we can have a rational discussion. I have not seen or read any cohesive objective from them. If there objective is income equality then they need to move to a country without a capitalistic economy. The problem is there has never been a country with income equality for everyone. Those in power always have much more than the others. Originally Posted by Laz

I concur with all you said. As to the 1%: the OWS is not against these people, no way, that is a misunderstanding. I think i have put sufficient arguments and an interview already in the other thread about OWS. Feel free to read it and we can take it from there (Its better than me copypasting everything here). No one of the OWS denies capitalism

What you say about racism and the tea party is true with communism and the left wings as well. As soon as you present a more social idea (or hell even discuss Marxism from a philosophic point of view) you get screamed at for being a communist. I agree that this does not allow for debate but rather provokes stereotypes and judgemental attitudes from both sides. If people could put that aside , i assume much more consens could be reached.

here are the links to the other discussion:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=123

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=111

and WTF`s argument pro government regulation (at least a little bit) i might add here too as a point for discussion:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=132

and i agree in not demonizing people, yet we also should consider the fact that there are strains of thought, for example art history or anthripology or wide ranges of psychology that can`t create as much income as Steve Jobs was. Shall we disregard such jobs as not worthy of social protection? I doubt it..

(There is this joke about the MA in art history : It says "I have an Masters in Art history!" - "Oh do you want fries and ketchup with that?" )

Was the sign extreme - yes, tacky - yes, inappropriate - yes, racist - no. That sign would have been used regardless of the race of the person whose policies they felt were wrong. I accept valid criticism for some of the things that have occured. Where I get disgusted is the racist accusations that occur whenever you disagree with the policies this president proposes.

My comments on your rates was intended to point out the stupidity of comparing your rates to anyone else and telling you to change. Of course your business model is different and you should be allowed to charge whatever you feel is appropriate. My point is that is true for all businesses and trying to penalize them because they are successful is counterproductive. Steve Jobs was a Billionaire because he made products that people wanted. Should we demonize him because he is in the 1%? What does that accomplish?

As for the objective of the OWS protesters, what are they? Please tell me what they want then we can have a rational discussion. I have not seen or read any cohesive objective from them. If there objective is income equality then they need to move to a country without a capitalistic economy. The problem is there has never been a country with income equality for everyone. Those in power always have much more than the others. Originally Posted by Laz

Laz so were these signs racist: http://motherjones.com/slideshows/20...t-signs/niggar

It's somewhat entertaining, but entirely useless to point out the extreme leftist agenda of OWS and the "mainstream" media that covers it. A few "jouralists" have actually lost their jobs after their open advocacy of the story they were supposedly covering as "impartial observers" was documented.

The difference between the OWS and TEA movements are night and day. Any truly impartial observer could see that and decide accordingly. But no observer who bases his/her decision on the "media" will ever get that chance.

I'm very glad the OWS is happening and that the socialists in government and the media are out in the open supporting it. By doing so, they've lost yet more credibility in the view of many if not most Americans. As for foreighners who support the socialists, including the POSITOO, that is understandable. Most foreigners prefer leadership in America that does not put the interests of America first, shared misery is the creed of socialism after all.

But no observer who bases his/her decision on the "media" will ever get that chance. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Right on cue. Any time an opposing viewpoint gets traction, blame the media.

Blah blah freakin' blah. What a sorry tired excuse.

I concur with all you said. As to the 1%: the OWS is not against these people, no way, that is a misunderstanding. I think i have put sufficient arguments and an interview already in the other thread about OWS. Feel free to read it and we can take it from there (Its better than me copypasting everything here). No one of the OWS denies capitalism

What you say about racism and the tea party is true with communism and the left wings as well. As soon as you present a more social idea (or hell even discuss Marxism from a philosophic point of view) you get screamed at for being a communist. I agree that this does not allow for debate but rather provokes stereotypes and judgemental attitudes from both sides. If people could put that aside , i assume much more consens could be reached.

here are the links to the other discussion:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=123

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=111

and WTF`s argument pro government regulation (at least a little bit) i might add here too as a point for discussion:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=132

and i agree in not demonizing people, yet we also should consider the fact that there are strains of thought, for example art history or anthripology or wide ranges of psychology that can`t create as much income as Steve Jobs was. Shall we disregard such jobs as not worthy of social protection? I doubt it..

(There is this joke about the MA in art history : It says "I have an Masters in Art history!" - "Oh do you want fries and ketchup with that?" ) Originally Posted by ninasastri

I agree with the links you have provided about the inappropriateness of govt supporting and subsidizing thes bankers that are making millions of dollars. They should face the same risks as anyone else. The idea that Citibank gets billions of free money while they jack up the interest rate on my mothers credit card to 29.9% because of a problem on her credit score even though she never missed a payment is offensive. Most people agree with you on the issue of govt subsidies of private business.

The other post addressed social mobility and that is a little more dificult. I would argue that free market capitalism is the best enabler of social mobility in existance. However, if anyone else has ideas on how to improve that I would be happy to consider them.

My response to WTF's argument if I remember correctly was that why would you trust the bought and paid for government to regulate the business any better. There should be a legal framework established to ensure honesty and fair competition. After that the government should get out of the way.

Since my undergrad degree is Political Science I can sympathize with the Master of Arts degree when it comes to value. However, I do not believe in government subsidies of the arts. If the art is not commercially viable you have to question its value. Individuals that want to practice their art even if it is not profitable need to either do something that supports them or find an audience for their art that will support them. There is no reason for government subsidies for people who choose a profession that is less profitable than the profession someone else chooses. This is no different than the government not subsidizing private businesses.

bogus racist allegations??? Are you kididing me there were racist signs at rallies- but it would be unfair to say that the whole movement was racist. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That is my point. However, the racism charges were made continually in spite of the fact that anyone that actually had racist propaganda was disavowed by the masses of Tea Party supporters. Remember the allegations made by democrats in Congress, when they walked through a Tea Party protest against Obamacare, even though there was not one bit of video or audio evidence to support the allgations.

The Bonus Marchers were eventually moved by the US military under the direct command of Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur and his aid LtCol. Dwight Eisenhower. They were aided with armor commanded by Major George Patton. The nation was revolted by this executive overreach and Hoover doomed his reelection bid.

I point this out because recently a OWS "leader" stood in front of the crowd and tried to lay down the rules. He was booed and the crowd accused him of becoming what they were protesting against. If they expect to survive the cold weather they need to grow up and get a set of working rules. If not then we will see violence from desperate people. I think the people calling the shots want to see this violence to further their ends of dividing the American people.

Some of what OWS says does make sense and parallels concerns of the Tea Party but the Tea Party made difference in 2010. The Tea Party did not repel the general population is spite of biased media coverage. Yes, I know the polling by groups unknown saying the OWS is more popular than the Tea Party but bear in mind the Tea Party is not as colorful as OWS. The media likes conflict. The Tea Party has been subjected to two years of attacks by both the media and the liberal politicians whereas the OWS has not reached that level on condemnation by the media and is supported by liberal politicians.

As for that sign; Hitler did promise "change" (his word) and railed against the Jewish bankers (fatcats). Lenin is actually a special case. He did set up an international organization to affect change in other countries (including the U.S.) but he also warned against promoting Stalin to the leadership. It was Stalin that effected how the USSR was run from the mass starvations in the Ukraine, the purge of the military leadership, the alliance with Nazi Germany, and the first cold war, in your face brinksmanship over Germany. Lenin did want change and he promised change. The sign is accurate for what it is worth but who is responsible for the sign? I could hire a sign on I-29 that says Romney belongs to a cult and Herman Cain likes young white girls. I could then sign it Metro-Kansas City Democratic Party. Better yet, I would move the sign to I-70 just east of downtown (the predominantly black section of town).

Of course I thought this was to discuss the issues and not the bone everyone seems to have about ad hominem attacks.

Laz so were these signs racist: http://motherjones.com/slideshows/20...t-signs/niggar Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

For the most part no. They in many cases were anti muslim and tried tying Obama to muslims. That is anti the muslim religion but not racist. In a couple of cases they were making the point that if Congress can take as much of our money as they want and spend it how they want then the taxpayer is a slave to Congress. The use of the word "Nigga" was to say that all taxpayers were slaves or what slaves used to be called. Bad choice of words but the intent was not racist. The very last sign of the guy on the bicycle I am not sure if he was being racist supporting the Tea party or pointing out that there were only white people in the demonstration.

The difference between the OWS and TEA movements are night and day. Any truly impartial observer could see that and decide accordingly. But no observer who bases his/her decision on the "media" will ever get that Originally Posted by Iaintliein

really? I have been to both rallies. The difference is in the age of the protesters, though the OWS has some older types. They both are angry that government bails out banks and not them. They protest differently but I promise you there is not much difference in IQ. Have you actually been to either rally?
I'm in NYC right now...say wtf you want about OWS but I am not sure how dedicated the old tea fucs would be to their cause in this weather. I take my hat off to them