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.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, so let's change government. I'm not sure why focusing on 1% or Wallstreet helps anything. I do think the small part about "Occupy K Street" has a bit of focus, government is large and needs to be paired down. But that is the ONLY issue that has any merit at all. The rest is all lost in translation.

I'm confused b/c you quoted me but you seem simply to disagree with the movement, which is fine but has little to do with my points.

You bolded the part about the oligarchy, so I'll respond as it relates.

I agree that focusing ire at the 1% is inappropriate, b/c some of the 1% agree with them. The system, not all of its beneficiaries, is the problem.

Wall Street is a great focus, though. Its institutions form a large portion of the oligarchy. K Street isn't as good a focus, b/c even some large lobbies (say, the NRA) have little to do with the complaints. Not everyone can camp out in NYC, though.

Re paring down government, that may be your message, but it has nothing to do with theirs. Again, you may disagree with them, but that's a separate question from whether they're properly focused or effective.

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.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, so let's change government. I'm not sure why focusing on 1% or Wallstreet helps anything. I do think the small part about "Occupy K Street" has a bit of focus, government is large and needs to be paired down. But that is the ONLY issue that has any merit at all. The rest is all lost in translation.

It's not lost in translation, it's lost in hearing. Paring down government is part of the tea party message, not the Occupy message. You hear it because it's what you want to hear, no matter what is said.

Is this an autoresponse? Why does "pairing down government" automatically mean I'm part of the tea party. Libertarians have been talking about big government for years before the tea party nutters came around. But, I understand just like the cry of Socialism! there is the cry of Tea Party!

The best part of not being part of a big R or big D or "Occupy this" or "Tea party that" is I can have my own thought. Which is why I said, I listen to the Occupy group and only heard part of their message.

Does it make you angry that their message is not coherent? Then clarify it for me - vs. spouting spin.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, so let's change government. I'm not sure why focusing on 1% or Wallstreet helps anything. I do think the small part about "Occupy K Street" has a bit of focus, government is large and needs to be paired down. But that is the ONLY issue that has any merit at all. The rest is all lost in translation.

I'm confused b/c you quoted me but you seem simply to disagree with the movement, which is fine but has little to do with my points.

You bolded the part about the oligarchy, so I'll respond as it relates.

I agree that focusing ire at the 1% is inappropriate, b/c some of the 1% agree with them. The system, not all of its beneficiaries, is the problem.

Wall Street is a great focus, though. Its institutions form a large portion of the oligarchy. K Street isn't as good a focus, b/c even some large lobbies (say, the NRA) have little to do with the complaints. Not everyone can camp out in NYC, though.

Re paring down government, that may be your message, but it has nothing to do with theirs. Again, you may disagree with them, but that's a separate question from whether they're properly focused or effective.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, so let's change government. I'm not sure why focusing on 1% or Wallstreet helps anything. I do think the small part about "Occupy K Street" has a bit of focus, government is large and needs to be paired down. But that is the ONLY issue that has any merit at all. The rest is all lost in translation.

It's not lost in translation, it's lost in hearing. Paring down government is part of the tea party message, not the Occupy message. You hear it because it's what you want to hear, no matter what is said.

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.

Yes, so let's change government. I'm not sure why focusing on 1% or Wallstreet helps anything. I do think the small part about "Occupy K Street" has a bit of focus, government is large and needs to be paired down. But that is the ONLY issue that has any merit at all. The rest is all lost in translation.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

I do not agree that wealth should be redistributed be people not willing to work the same way I did. I would LOVE to spend time sitting around, enjoying time in tent city. It looks like fun compared to my daily grind.

Agreed. I look at the protesters and I see immaturity.

I think you misread what most of the demonstrators are saying. They are all for hard work being rewarded, but opposed to the laying off of people who have worked hard all their lives while CEOs, even those who have blundered their companies into those lay-offfs, get gigantic pay-offs. Pay-offs for lay-offs is a different animal from the daily grind most of us have undergone.

I see them as a loose, rudderless band of trash-making idealists who have never created a job in their lives and in some cases (the college-aged ones perhaps?), have never even worked a job. What is their point? Who is even listening? That is their problem. The whole thing seems kind of amateurish to me and has fizzled out. They are protesting to what end? Did they accomplish what they sought out to do? If they are going to affect change, they need to do better than that. They need to convert minds. Several months later, I don't think they succeeded. I'd like to see an analysis of the "movement" by the guy who wrote The Tipping Point.

I do not agree that wealth should be redistributed be people not willing to work the same way I did. I would LOVE to spend time sitting around, enjoying time in tent city. It looks like fun compared to my daily grind.

Agreed. I look at the protesters and I see immaturity.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I have at least some respect for anyone willing to undergo this hardship for a principle.

I support anyone complaining about oligarchy and economic injustice in this country, and anyone screwed by the same.

What's not to like?

While I have respect that they are willing to undergo hardship for something they believe in, I am opposed to what they believe in. I got to where I am by hard work - as did my DH. We both started from nothing, I worked two jobs to put myself through school. So, yes - I maybe in the 1% (or, what they consider the 1%) but I earned it. I also give back to the community I came from.

I do not agree that wealth should be redistributed be people not willing to work the same way I did. I would LOVE to spend time sitting around, enjoying time in tent city. It looks like fun compared to my daily grind.

Yes. I have at least some respect for anyone willing to undergo this hardship for a principle.

I support anyone complaining about oligarchy and economic injustice in this country, and anyone screwed by the same.

What's not to like?

amen to the first amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

republicans have bad apples.
They even include that thug called Donald Trump
I wish they would rise above their bad apples, but instead have stagnated.

Ah yes, the dems are so superior--an artificially waxed and shinny apple that is wormy and mealy under the skin is so much better.

You've got it wrong. The Republicans are like an artificially waxed and shinny apple that is wormy and mealy under the skin (thiink about all their talk of family values and homosexuals are deviants while having multuiple affairs and meeting up with male prostitutes in airport bathrooms). Or maybe they are granny smith apples - bitter.

The democrats... They more like a honeycrisp apple. Multicolored skin, but watery inside.

You've clearly never had a real Honeycrisp apple, because they are some of the most flavorful apples.

The protesters I disagree with are the thugs.