Does anyone still support these Occupy DC thugs?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly think they are focused or effective?

No. I'm working on a screenplay about it, and in the several paragraphs I wrote before I was just trying out a new voice.

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen change come about from their movement?

You quoted my long answer to this earlier. Maybe you should read that instead of asking the question again.

Anonymous wrote:Outside of the increased amount of man-hours for local law enforcement.

As someone said, if the cops weren't treating them like well-armed street gangs, they wouldn't need nearly the same resources. Regardless, many protests have be effective primarily by disrupting normal functions and making the perpetuation of the status quo more expensive.

Anonymous wrote:Their "so called" movement was supposed to bring about change.

Putting that phrase in quotes is like using a double negative.

Anonymous wrote:If it has happened, please point it out to me.

Already did. Try reading.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you honestly think they are focused or effective? Have you seen change come about from their movement? Outside of the increased amount of man-hours for local law enforcement.

I don't - I see more talk - and maybe because my job is talk, talk, talk - I don't see talk bringing about change. Their "so called" movement was supposed to bring about change. I don't see it.

If it has happened, please point it out to me.

Given the immensity of the change that OWS is demanding, you are hardly being realistic to have expected them to have accomplished it by now. But, as I posted earlier in this thread, the impact of OSS is not deniable. I pointed out the dramatic increase in the times "income inequality" was mentioned in the media. Simply getting people to talk about the topic is significant. I also illustrated how Obama's speech and, indeed, the entire focus of his re-election campaign has been influenced by OWS. A OWS protester was on the cover of Time's "Person of the Year" issue and, of course, "Person of the Year" was "The Protester".

We are now in the "Get off of my lawn" phase of the protest in which grumpy people who have never done anything to change anything are complaining about OWS not changing things.

Are you refering to me? I should hope not.

[jsteele]

Here is a tangible OWS achievement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/occupy-atlanta-saves-iraq-veterans-home-from-foreclosure_n_1158097.html

OccupyAtlanta occupied the home of an Iraq War vet that was being foreclosed on. JPMorgan Chase had sent owner an eviction notice, but after the house was occupied, began discussing a loan modification. That modification became official today and the family will be able to remain in the house.

Perhaps a very small victory in the big picture, but very important to one family. Not bad for a bunch of loser thugs.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly think they are focused or effective?

No. I'm working on a screenplay about it, and in the several paragraphs I wrote before I was just trying out a new voice.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I was going to read the rest of your response, but after this I assumed you had nothing really to add to the conversation. I'm sure it was very funny and will bring humor to DCUM.

Good show!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here is a tangible OWS achievement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/occupy-atlanta-saves-iraq-veterans-home-from-foreclosure_n_1158097.html

OccupyAtlanta occupied the home of an Iraq War vet that was being foreclosed on. JPMorgan Chase had sent owner an eviction notice, but after the house was occupied, began discussing a loan modification. That modification became official today and the family will be able to remain in the house.

Perhaps a very small victory in the big picture, but very important to one family. Not bad for a bunch of loser thugs.

I never called them thugs (that was the OP). However, I wonder what the larger costs to taxpayers are for some of the services (i.e., law enforcement, clean up of Occupy Camps, traffic blocks from protests, etc.) The cost benefit of what they are doing does not add up for me.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. ...

I resent that! As an inveterate punster, I have been assured by the overwhelming majority of my hearers (it would be inaccurate to call them listeners) that we punsters have unassailable claim to that distinction.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly think they are focused or effective?

No. I'm working on a screenplay about it, and in the several paragraphs I wrote before I was just trying out a new voice.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I was going to read the rest of your response, but after this I assumed you had nothing really to add to the conversation. I'm sure it was very funny and will bring humor to DCUM.

Good show!

Oh no! And you had read so carefully up to then!

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see them as a loose, rudderless band of trash-making idealists who have never created a job in their lives...

...as opposed to the multitudes of us who have "created" jobs? BTW, I've "created" several, though I wouldn't put it that way, and I don't think that makes me so awesome.

Anonymous wrote:What is their point?

The most widespread one is that the government is controlled by a oligarchy of economic elites and that the distribution of wealth is terribly uneven as a result, both of which situations are bad. I don't know why that's so unclear to so many. It's considerably more specific than the Tea Party message: "Obama sucks."

Anonymous wrote:Who is even listening?

Every media outlet, therefore just about everyone. Here we are, talking about them yet again.

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing seems kind of amateurish to me...

Of course it does - they're amateurs. And they weren't immediately purchased by billionaires, like the Tea Party was.

Anonymous wrote:They are protesting to what end?

To draw attention to their complaint, like most protestors.

Anonymous wrote:Did they accomplish what they sought out to do? If they are going to affect change, they need to do better than that.

They changed the conversation, virtually unilaterally. Before they started, all politicians and media outlets were obsessed with balancing the budget; now there is a much broader agenda. That is, they drew attention to their complaint.

I don't happen to think that they will change the country to the degree that, say, the civil rights movement did, because the economic elites have so much more power now than the racists did then, but that doesn't mean their efforts were entirely ineffective. One starfish at a time. I'm pretty sure they've done more than I, and I bet you, ever have to effect political change.

No, I'm pretty sure the Tea Party message is more like "Stop spending so god damn much of my unborn grandchildrens' money you lazy sonofabitches."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see them as a loose, rudderless band of trash-making idealists who have never created a job in their lives...

...as opposed to the multitudes of us who have "created" jobs? BTW, I've "created" several, though I wouldn't put it that way, and I don't think that makes me so awesome.

Anonymous wrote:What is their point?

The most widespread one is that the government is controlled by a oligarchy of economic elites and that the distribution of wealth is terribly uneven as a result, both of which situations are bad. I don't know why that's so unclear to so many. It's considerably more specific than the Tea Party message: "Obama sucks."

Anonymous wrote:Who is even listening?

Every media outlet, therefore just about everyone. Here we are, talking about them yet again.

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing seems kind of amateurish to me...

Of course it does - they're amateurs. And they weren't immediately purchased by billionaires, like the Tea Party was.

Anonymous wrote:They are protesting to what end?

To draw attention to their complaint, like most protestors.

Anonymous wrote:Did they accomplish what they sought out to do? If they are going to affect change, they need to do better than that.

They changed the conversation, virtually unilaterally. Before they started, all politicians and media outlets were obsessed with balancing the budget; now there is a much broader agenda. That is, they drew attention to their complaint.

I don't happen to think that they will change the country to the degree that, say, the civil rights movement did, because the economic elites have so much more power now than the racists did then, but that doesn't mean their efforts were entirely ineffective. One starfish at a time. I'm pretty sure they've done more than I, and I bet you, ever have to effect political change.

No, I'm pretty sure the Tea Party message is more like "Stop spending so god damn much of my unborn grandchildrens' money you lazy sonofabitches."

It would be nice if that were the Tea Party platform. But a quick look at their voting behavior shows it's not all about small government and deficit reduction.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm pretty sure the Tea Party message is more like "Stop spending so god damn much of my unborn grandchildrens' money you lazy sonofabitches."

If that's so, I don't understand why they freaked out over the health insurance plan, and why they never said anything about Bush's spending, and still say very little about the wars. They didn't seem to notice any of the spending until Obama took office.

I've always said that if the Tea Party were focused on the bailouts, I'd be much more supportive.

[takoma]

I think the commonality between tea party and OWS is they're mad as hell and the difference is not what they're mad about, but whether or not they watch Fox News.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm pretty sure the Tea Party message is more like "Stop spending so god damn much of my unborn grandchildrens' money you lazy sonofabitches."

If that's so, I don't understand why they freaked out over the health insurance plan, and why they never said anything about Bush's spending, and still say very little about the wars. They didn't seem to notice any of the spending until Obama took office.

I've always said that if the Tea Party were focused on the bailouts, I'd be much more supportive.

They do, however, notice when two men hold hands in public. And they like to meddle with DC's needle exchange program, even though it is a local matter and paid for with local funds. And they hate government spending but love their oil pipelines. And Planned Parenthood.

Joining the Tea Party is like marrying a guy and then finding out you have to share a house with twenty of his unlikeable cousins.