Occupy Wall Street

Did you see the topless babes? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No but I sure was looking!

COG, I went to the first Tea Party Rally in Houston, it is a totally different crowd but they are basically protesting the exact same thing. Why bail Wallstreet and not me.

Whirlyway thinks the Tea Folks want smaller government but when you ask them what to cut they do not want you cutting Defense nor SS nor Medicare. That is the bulk of WTF we spend our tax dollars on!

So really the Captain Middynightnight has accessed it correctly.

These things can sometimes take on a party atmosphere!

Sometime back, maybe in the late '90s, I was watching some TV news coverage of one of the G-20 or WTO protests. An on-the-scene reporter put a mike in front of a skinny, fairly scruffy-looking kid about 22. When asked what he was protesting, the kid exhibited a blank look for a few seconds and said something like, "Globalism. Capitalism, man! Rich bankers. Greed!"

Then after the kid looked pensively at the camera for a few seconds while apparently trying to think of more complaints to list, the reporter said, "Looks like a pretty good party might be brewing here. Level with me, now. You're here to meet chicks, right?"

Then the kid broke into a slight smile that said, "Busted!"

That is too funny!

. . . I guess some things never change!

These things can sometimes take on a party atmosphere!

Sometime back, maybe in the late '90s, I was watching some TV news coverage of one of the G-20 or WTO protests. An on-the-scene reporter put a mike in front of a skinny, fairly scruffy-looking kid about 22. When asked what he was protesting, the kid exhibited a blank look for a few seconds and said something like, "Globalism. Capitalism, man! Rich bankers. Greed!"

Then after the kid looked pensively at the camera for a few seconds while apparently trying to think of more complaints to list, the reporter said, "Looks like a pretty good party might be brewing here. Level with me, now. You're here to meet chicks, right?"

Then the kid broke into a slight smile that said, "Busted!" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

... occupy wallstreet folks here in Sugar Land at town hall. Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

They get confused with wailstreet.

Many, wrongly think the Tea Party is against structural changes to medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense; even when confronted with statements from the Tea Party stating otherwise...........

Here is a link to the Tea Party support of the Paul Ryan Medicare restructuring...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917347.html

Here is the link to the Tea Party support for defense cuts (note that the article also refernese that "all" areas of the federal government are on the table for cutting)........http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/01/...spending-cuts/

and while the Tea Party generally doesn't support cutting benefits to those who are current receiveing SS; or near the age of benefits, it does support major changes to the plan that alters the entitlement to those who are much younger, allowing them to contribute to private programs and such...Herman Cain, like many Tea Party participants, like the Chilean model......http://articles.businessinsider.com/...del-gop-debate

This is a non-observation; while both movements have the same/similar rage against corporate greed and such; there is a wide ocean of difference between them; their respective solutions are miles apart; the Occupy America crowd doesn't belive in smaller govenment; less regulation; lower debt; more individual responsibility; more Constitutional governance.............and to think otherwise is foolish.

It's like observing that there is fundamental agreement between Islamists and Christians; afterall they both believe in their respective Gods.....

it is a totally different crowd but they are basically protesting the exact same thing. Why bail Wallstreet and not me.
Originally Posted by WTF

and while the Tea Party generally doesn't support cutting benefits to those who are current receiveing SS; or near the age of benefits, it does support major changes to the plan that alters the entitlement to those who are much younger, -debate Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How mighty fuc'n nice of them!

Set up a plan where you contribute less than you take out on average and then lock yourself into that plan while altering it for everyone else!

Yea now tell me that isn't some selfish shit!

The young Wallstreet folks want more free school shit!

So yea there is a difference but not in the bottom line and the bottom line is the one that counts.

It's like observing that there is fundamental agreement between Islamists and Christians; afterall they both believe in their respective Gods..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Now you are starting to get it...just like religious folks these protesters wanting to convert you to their way of thinking!

It's very interesting to watch the right wing's reaction to the OWS movement. And OWS has done some pretty clever things. One is to stay leaderless by design. Once you have leaders, they can be co-opted.

Same with an agenda. If they get specific with an agenda, their aims can either be met, co-opted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party, or picked apart as unrealistic or a bad idea. But if their complaint is that the current economic system is unfair and broken, and heavily tilted in favor of the super rick, and they go no further, that is almost impossible to rebut.

But the right wing reaction to the protests is the most interesting thing to watch to me. It reminds me of the reaction to Vietnam war protesters in the mid to late 1960's. It starts with ridicule, and then, when the protest grow and get's stronger, the search for villains expands to include the media. It's a shame that their emerging in a year when the Democrats are running a corporatist centrist incumbent. If we had a real left wing populist Democrat running, like John Edwards with out the girlfriend baggage, that candidate could clean up. Because while the OWS types realize that the Democrats have some complicity in both parties catering to the mega-welathy and corporate interest, they do realize that no Republican is out there campaigning on anything that even remotely will attack the problem. Maybe they will coalesce around Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race and she can be a factor in 2016.

I do not question their right to protest and a repeat of Kent State is the last thing I want.

However, when you have so many angry people gathered together you have a situation sitting on a powder keg and the fuse may be short.

I just think it should be diffused before it gets really ugly, but our leaders seem to think that if they ignore it, it will go away.

. . . Is that really the most prudent approach to handle such a volatile situation?

Fast Gunn really? So do you want a repeat of Kent State? Because that kind of talk could possibly lead to that.

By the way, these people have an American right to protest. Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

I do not question their right to protest and a repeat of Kent State is the last thing I want.

However, when you have so many angry people gathered together you have a situation sitting on a powder keg and the fuse may be short.

I just think it should be diffused before it gets really ugly, but our leaders seem to think that if they ignore it, it will go away.

. . . Is that really the most prudent approach to handle such a volatile situation?
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Well when I was there (twice) the last thing it was , was volatile.

I read where they had raised 300k , so they will be there for awhile.

I agree with TTH...it is really weird for the Tea Folks to make fun of the exact same thing they were bitching about. They are taking two different path but the both wanna get to the same destination. I guess the Tea Folks were made fun of so much that they gotta find some group to do the same to.

They may have raised only $300,000, but I have in on the best authority that there is a lot more where that came from. This is slightly more of a spontaneous group than the TeaNuts, but it's not all spontaneous. But this is something of a astroturf movement stirred up with national money though not to the same extent as the TeaNuts. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak. But the money that they need will be there as long as they are getting positive publicity. And they are getting a ton of it now, as you can tell from the right wing hate echo chamber/hate media attacks.

I do not question their right to protest and a repeat of Kent State is the last thing I want.

However, when you have so many angry people gathered together you have a situation sitting on a powder keg and the fuse may be short.

I just think it should be diffused before it gets really ugly, but our leaders seem to think that if they ignore it, it will go away.

. . . Is that really the most prudent approach to handle such a volatile situation?
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

So I am interpreting what you are saying as "they don't have right to gather and protest, because things might get out of hand?" So is this the start of taking away peoples rights to gather and protest now, because if it is getting too big it might get out of hand?

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen polled the NY Occupy Wall Street gang and here are some of his results:

-That the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse.

-It comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.

-Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

-The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

-An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

-Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

-What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

-Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.

-By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor.

-By a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

-Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation.

-Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party (Shoen's conclusion, not mine)

It's very interesting to watch the right wing's reaction to the OWS movement. And OWS has done some pretty clever things. One is to stay leaderless by design. Once you have leaders, they can be co-opted.

Same with an agenda. If they get specific with an agenda, their aims can either be met, co-opted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party, or picked apart as unrealistic or a bad idea. But if their complaint is that the current economic system is unfair and broken, and heavily tilted in favor of the super rick, and they go no further, that is almost impossible to rebut.

But the right wing reaction to the protests is the most interesting thing to watch to me. It reminds me of the reaction to Vietnam war protesters in the mid to late 1960's. It starts with ridicule, and then, when the protest grow and get's stronger, the search for villains expands to include the media. It's a shame that their emerging in a year when the Democrats are running a corporatist centrist incumbent. If we had a real left wing populist Democrat running, like John Edwards with out the girlfriend baggage, that candidate could clean up. Because while the OWS types realize that the Democrats have some complicity in both parties catering to the mega-welathy and corporate interest, they do realize that no Republican is out there campaigning on anything that even remotely will attack the problem. Maybe they will coalesce around Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race and she can be a factor in 2016. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What you've described is a biomass that is characteristically the equivalent of slime mold.

Obama is a centrist?!