Occupy Wall Street

[sirkickyass]

So to you identifying the "slant" of an organization = "punching bag". Fox News is obviously right-slanted, and way more than NPR is left-slanted. Uh-oh, now I might be a liberal. I better be careful. Wow do you ever reach to get to those labels.

You know very well that my perception of your viewpoint is based upon a wide range of issues. I even made a list once. This is one you're just going to have to accept. I'm going to poke fun at you for being a functional conservative while claiming independence for as long as you do it. If it hurts your feelings or annoys you, I guess I don't really care. You'll note that you've caused more discussion of it by posting a response to a parenthetical half-sentence than there ever would have been if you would have just let it slide off your back. But someone wrote something about insecurity recently ...

 

[LogGrad98]

You know very well that my perception of your viewpoint is based upon a wide range of issues. I even made a list once. This is one you're just going to have to accept. I'm going to poke fun at you for being a functional conservative while claiming independence for as long as you do it. If it hurts your feelings or annoys you, I guess I don't really care. You'll note that you've caused more discussion of it by posting a response to a parenthetical half-sentence than there ever would have been if you would have just let it slide off your back. But someone wrote something about insecurity recently ...

These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions,

A trolling mod. Interesting.

 

[Agoxlea]

I'm going to poke fun at you for being a functional conservative while claiming independence for as long as you do it.

I 100% agree

 

[Deleted member 365]

thanks kicky, I appreciate your dismissiveness <3

Yes I know NPR is fair, at least overall, and makes a real effort to be fair and show all sides in its specific shows. But its regular broadcasting tends to be slanted to the left, or at least that's their reputation.

My point primarily is that poor today is not like poor 50 years ago. It's ironic that you equate sharing a television with 2 or 3 roommates with not having any television at all. Or not having indoor plumbing....

But you're right, I'm old, so who gives a ****. At your age, you have all the answers. But don't worry, you'll probably be my age someday.

And in case you missed it, I think the growing wealth and income disparity is a bad thing for our society.

Couldn't this logic be used in the reverse way as well?

Why have 12 Rolls Royce when you could get just as much enjoyment out of a 10 year old Ford Taurus?

I think we could use this logic of... "Don't complain, things were worse x amount of years ago in x country" to justify just about anything in life.

Why should we complain about religious freedom when people were being slaughtered in Spain a few hundred years ago depending on their religion?

Why should we complain about crime when you were lucky to not have your eyes gouged out by the Vandals?

The bottom line is,

#1 Americans will keep playing this game, as long as they feel like they have a chance to win. Winning is a broad description, which can be described simply as being able to provide for your family to becoming rich (climbing the ladder/earning enough to one day be able to invest into your own company). Unfortunately, for many Americans, this "American Dream" is disappearing. Many are angry at this, since the Dream of WS isn't if they're able to become rich. It's how much richer can one make oneself at any cost necessary?
#2 The biggest contribution to the disappearance of this dream? The rich/wall street/big corporations in bed (literally in some cases) with Congress. The "Corporations are People too" attitude is insulting to many of the OWS peeps. Through favorable tax laws to immigration policy to war mongering, the rich buy off Congress whose decisions have dire effects on the rest of us.
#3 How much longer can this country survive with so much of the nation's wealth owned by so few? This is a legit concern, as that the US wealth distribution looks more and more like a 3rd world country than an industrialized power house. How much longer can we maintain our standard of living with so much of the wealth shifting to the hands of the few?

But that's okay, lets not answer these questions. Lets focus, like LG has, on what's being served for dinner at the protests than any of these issues. Of course, being independent means biases cannot show.

 

[LogGrad98]

Have to give you some credit Thriller, you actually articulated the issues without relying entirely on enflammatory language and stereotyping. For once. Too bad the OWS people don't do as good a job articulating the same points. Maybe you should go work for them.

FWIW I agree with you pretty much point for point. If OWS could actually figure out a way to get that message out and not be so disjointed and unclear in their agenda they would have more success.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Have to give you some credit Thriller, you actually articulated the issues without relying entirely on enflammatory language and stereotyping. For once. Too bad the OWS people don't do as good a job articulating the same points. Maybe you should go work for them.

FWIW I agree with you pretty much point for point. If OWS could actually figure out a way to get that message out and not be so disjointed and unclear in their agenda they would have more success.

Then why are you focusing on what's being served for dinner and other ridiculous issues?

See, it's hypocritical that you claim to be "above" this partisan bickering by being independent (you may not have said as much but that's the assumption when you claim to be independent), such as what's being served for dinner, then you participate in it at nearly every opportunity. The first few pages of this thread alone are littered with partisan trash.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

A trolling mod. Interesting.

This surprises you?

 

[LogGrad98]

This surprises you?

Good point.

 

[LogGrad98]

Then why are you focusing on what's being served for dinner and other ridiculous issues?

See, it's hypocritical that you claim to be "above" this partisan bickering by being independent (you may not have said as much but that's the assumption when you claim to be independent), such as what's being served for dinner, then you participate in it at nearly every opportunity. The first few pages of this thread alone are littered with partisan trash.

It was the point that the menu was the biggest issue NPR could find to report on. The group was doing such a crappy job on their message that the food fiasco was center-stage on the radio new outlets for over a week. It is also interesting that this one issue was so easily spun to be the opposite of what the movement is supposed to be about. Doesn't that say something to you about the movement in general?

They need to do more to get the focus out of the weeds and onto the real issues, but they are just not doing that. Kicky and others have expressed a similar sentiment. But you ignore anything that doesn't support your position or brush it aside and make snap judgements without ever really talking about the issues at all, other than to be condescending and throw crass stereotypes at anyone who disagrees with you. How is that suppoed to lead to discussion? With that last post you finally broke through and said something that didn't sound like it was written by a zealous hermit living in in his shack alone in the Montana woods. Congrats.

 

[Deleted member 365]

It was the point that the menu was the biggest issue NPR could find to report on. The group was doing such a crappy job on their message that the food fiasco was center-stage on the radio new outlets for over a week. It is also interesting that this one issue was so easily spun to be the opposite of what the movement is supposed to be about. Doesn't that say something to you about the movement in general?

They need to do more to get the focus out of the weeds and onto the real issues, but they are just not doing that. Kicky and others have expressed a similar sentiment. But you ignore anything that doesn't support your position or brush it aside and make snap judgements without ever really talking about the issues at all, other than to be condescending and throw crass stereotypes at anyone who disagrees with you. How is that suppoed to lead to discussion? With that last post you finally broke through and said something that didn't sound like it was written by a zealous hermit living in in his shack alone in the Montana woods. Congrats.

So what?

The exact same could have been said about the Tea Party for a good year or two.

This is why I find it immensely comical that so many proud supporters of the Tea Party on this board are already calling the OWS movement a failure. If we had a DeLorean that could take us back in time once we hit 88 MPH, we'd quickly find that the Tea Party had the exact same problems with organization, winning support, clarifying their message, etc at this stage.

Give this OWS some time...

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Then why are you focusing on what's being served for dinner and other ridiculous issues?

See, it's hypocritical that you claim to be "above" this partisan bickering by being independent (you may not have said as much but that's the assumption when you claim to be independent), such as what's being served for dinner, then you participate in it at nearly every opportunity. The first few pages of this thread alone are littered with partisan trash.

This is a 40 day old event. Picking apart little things and having a little fun at their expense does not show a lack of focus. Everybody knows they need an endgame. Here's a few questions for you,

1) If they are truly not a left wing group, how are they ever going to be a force in elections like some people are expecting them to be? The tea party was able to achieve some gains in that realm, which were surly of questionable worth, because they were similar people across the board.

2) Is their only real option to come up with 1 or 2 solid demands and then say we're not leaving until these demands are met sufficiently? Do they even have the brainpower within that group to come up with something that is not going to be way overboard?

3) Obama has clearly been pandering to them a little bit with a few tweaks here and there to student loans and mortgages recently.... Do you view those moves as being a positive step forward?

 

[sirkickyass]

Give this OWS some time...

Personally, I suspect this will fizzle out when it gets cold enough.

1) If they are truly not a left wing group, how are they ever going to be a force in elections like some people are expecting them to be? The tea party was able to achieve some gains in that realm, which were surly of questionable worth, because they were similar people across the board.

The Tea Party's electoral success is a true co-option or capture question. At this point there is little to distinguish them from the mainstream GOP.

2) Is there only real option to come up with 1 or 2 solid demands and then say we're not leaving until these demands are met sufficiently? Do they even have the brainpower within that group to come up with something that is not going to be way overboard?

Probably not, unless co-option or capture occurs. It is possible that this will be a house/senate election issue in a few states but I don't see it having much impact on the general presidential election. How many OWS protesters were ever going to vote for Romney/Perry/Cain?