New ATS Survey: Occupy Wall Street

Originally posted by rabidrabbit

You really think its an accurate analogy to say that people trying to draw attention to the frustration with the fiscal policies represented by Wall Street are 'tilting at windmills'?

Yes. It's a Quixotic quest. They are making their displeasure know to Wall Street, fine. Does anyone really think Wall Street is going to notice, care or reform itself?

Because that implies that Wall Street isn't a threat at all, which I think is not very accurate.

Of course it's a threat. It will not, however, "fix" itself in any meaningful way. For that to occur, government will have to fix it. That starts with the government, not Wall Street. I personally think ending the federal reserve, and giving that power back to treasury would be a better place to start - it then makes the economy more responsive to the will of the population, rather than the will of futures traders and allied thieves. You can ask a thief to pretty please stop stealing all day long, but it won't have quite the same effect as calling a cop too arrest him.

If your point is that they need to be MORE specific, then I agree. But I don't agree that they entire 'protest' is invalid just because they arent all storming Congress.

The protest is not "invalid" in my opinion, it's only misdirected. I have to question WHY it is directed in the way that it is towards Wall Street, who will laugh at it, rather than towards DC, who would have to take notice or risk losing their jobs. Right now, as it stands, politicians are probably wiping their brows and saying "Whew! We dodged THAT bullet - let wall street take it - they won't care!"

Try as you may, I'm not going to say I unequivocally support this movement. But I support people organizing and expressing their frustration. I think it's a good thing. I said the same thing about the Tea Party before FreedomWorks and FOX co-opted it. Hopefully the Unions and MSNBC don't co-opt this one.

I don't think you need to worry about it being "co-opted". I think you should think out exactly where it came from, and why it is aimed the way it is. No, protest in and of itself is not a "bad" thing, but the devil is in the details.

Originally posted by mike dangerously

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I think I forgot to add one question...

"Will the original core message of eliminating corporate financial influence from government, be marginalized, obfuscated, and otherwise eliminated through the politicization of the movement in mainstream media?"

I think that's the point SO.The people trying to hijack the movement and turn it into a pro Obama/Democrat movement have connections to the administration and are big donators as well.The people behind the left/right scam are terrified of an all encompassing movement.

It isn't going to happen.
They know how banks and government are connected.
They know!
This is about separating all that,hold those responsible accountable,and return America to what the founding fathers had set out to create.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson Read more: www.brainyquote.com...

reply to post by OccupyPlanet
All part of the show,man all part of the show.If this grows their will be mass condemnation from the MSM like I said in another thread:The media rarely offer a favorable view of dissent.

Originally posted by nenothtu


Yes. It's a Quixotic quest. They are making their displeasure know to Wall Street, fine. Does anyone really think Wall Street is going to notice, care or reform itself?

Are you under the impression they are protesting Wall Street to make Wall Street change on their own?

Because I think it is pretty obvious the POINT is to draw attention to the fact that Wall Street CONTROLS Washington. As noted previously, Obama has numerous ties to Wall Street donors. So do both of the major parties.

Right now, as it stands, politicians are probably wiping their brows and saying "Whew! We dodged THAT bullet - let wall street take it - they won't care!"

It's an interesting theory. But I really dont follow your line of thinking. Politicians arent concerned with a protest unless its in DC? How so? How does the location change the message?


Again, you seem like you are criticizing them out-of-hand, even though you admit you agree with their sentiment when it comes down to specifics. I hope you attend your local Occupy rally and can express these ideals with the clarity and conviction you present them here.

I think you should think out exactly where it came from, and why it is aimed the way it is. No, protest in and of itself is not a "bad" thing, but the devil is in the details.

Where do you think it 'came from'? As I noted, the original idea appears to have come from a page in adbusters. Are you aware of some specific damning details of the origins of this protest you would care to share with the group?

I missed the edits... oops!

Originally posted by rabidrabbit

Was the Boston Tea Party 'tilting at windmills' when they threw the tea in the harbor, instead of taking a petition to England?

No, but that was a direct action against the Stamp Act, and so a direct action against the Crown. Here and now, we don't have to take a 3 month ocean voyage to petition the government. We know right away when they are ignoring us, as has, I must admit, been the case in recent times. I think it's possible that the most recent elections may cause them to take a bit more notice, and especially take more notice than a deflective assault on Wall Street, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. If recent events in the primaries are any indication, they may just not have gotten the message even yet.

Star for you for being a mature, intelligent debater, tho.

And likewise for you. I hate getting down into the mud unless I have to chase my opponent down there, and that isn't the case here. Kudos!

Personally, I will be VERY skeptical of any one person or group who claims to speak for this whole 'movement'. The varied causes, while seemingly disparate, at least represent to me a genuine-ness. No mass-produced placards and talking points YET.

That's a fact, and I agree. I think when those placards DO appear, some folks are going to be surprised - but it may be too late to slow the momentum by then. I believe there are those around who are, if you'll excuse the term, banking on that.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah, I'm bad with those edits.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint in terms of location. You are saying agree with the sentiment of bringing attention to peoples' frustration with Wall Street's influence on Washington, but you just disagree with the LOCATION of the protest?

reply to post by kdog1982


Without a doubt Glass-Steagall should be reinstated, if not an outright ban on speculative ventures like trading in "futures".

Originally posted by rabidrabbit

Are you under the impression they are protesting Wall Street to make Wall Street change on their own?

Because I think it is pretty obvious the POINT is to draw attention to the fact that Wall Street CONTROLS Washington. As noted previously, Obama has numerous ties to Wall Street donors. So do both of the major parties.

I think the protest ought to be directed at the politicians in DC because THEY are the ones who will have to shake the Wall Street money (I meant 'monkey' but the typo works - I think I'll keep it!) off their back. targeting DC and the politicians and saying "get clean or here's your pink slip" would seem to me to have more of a chance of taking effect.

Wall Street CAN'T control Washington without the consent of Washington. I feel that is where the ire should be directed and made felt. I have to wonder WHY it's being directed at Wall Street instead. I have a theory about that, but have already written about it elsewhere at ATS.

It's an interesting theory. But I really dont follow your line of thinking. Politicians arent concerned with a protest unless its in DC? How so? How does the location change the message?

No, but changing the immediate target changes the immediate focus. If DC is the real target, all this does is provide a deflection that may cause a riccochet. A riccochet may hit the target, but it's not likely to. I was actually hit by a riccochet bullet one time, and by the time if got to me, it had lost all it's energy, Felt like someone tapping me on the shoulder rather than being hit with a ball peen hammer. Sorry for the militarisitc analogy, but I think it's an apt illustration. Aim for the target, so you don't lose the momentum in the interim. No deflections.

Again, you seem like you are criticizing them out-of-hand, even though you admit you agree with their sentiment when it comes down to specifics. I hope you attend your local Occupy rally and can express these ideals with the clarity and conviction you present them here.

I'm not criticizing the sentiment of the protestors themselves. I think their heart is in the right place, but they are being aimed wrong.

I'll be working 15 hours the day it kicks off here, and for the next couple of days after that, but if it's still going on the following Tuesday, it's likely I'll wander down and meander among the crowd interacting as the opportunity presents itself. The planning meeting here alone evidently had around 200 attendees, and checking another thread here for the actual protest in Cleveland, it seems the protest there only has around 200. Like I said before, though, we have 6 or so colleges in the immediate area, so I expect there will be a fair sized crowd at the protest here.

Actually, being somewhat familiar with Cleveland, I'm sort of shocked that the turnout wasn't bigger there. there's still time to build, I reckon.

Where do you think it 'came from'? As I noted, the original idea appears to have come from a page in adbusters. Are you aware of some specific damning details of the origins of this protest you would care to share with the group?

Yes, the original ad came from Adbusters, oddly, perhaps, when that was released, websites were already set up and ready to go, and now they are trying (at least here at ATS) to make it look like it was just a nebulous idea in a blog, rather than an already fully-formed plan.

Some are speculating as to the original source of the money for the setup, but I'll leave that to them - they are better at ferreting out those sorts of details than I. All I can say with conviction is that a simple Whois search will demonstrate that infrastructure was already in place when the idea was born, seemingly out of nowhere. It doesn't appear to me to have been spontaneous - it appears to have been more of a pre-planned operation.

Here is a link to the OP in a thread about the Whois information, and here is a link to one of my posts laying out where I think the grand plan came from.

Note that I differentiate between the protestors themselves and the people behind the curtain.

Originally posted by rabidrabbit
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah, I'm bad with those edits.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint in terms of location. You are saying agree with the sentiment of bringing attention to peoples' frustration with Wall Street's influence on Washington, but you just disagree with the LOCATION of the protest?

Not only the location, but the very name of the protests - "occupy WALL STREET". It bespeaks a target that in my opinion is off the mark somewhat. Nothing seems to be directed at the politicians who could actually do something.

reply to post by BohemianBrim


Same here! neutral on that one..

reply to post by rabidrabbit

Originally posted by mishigas


It seems to me that the OWS is Obama's desperate version of the Tea Party Movement. He has even infused unions into some of these gatherings. But it is a poor, pathetic attempt at a copy of the TPM;

Funny, that is basically the EXACT same thing the liberal press said about the Republicans and the Tea Party.

And, as with them your broad generalizations don't actually consider the many valid points and varied nuances of an actual political movement.

Considering the amount of Ron Paul supporters down there, considering the amount of anti-Obama signs, I'd say calling this an "Obama movement" is sort of head-in-the-sand.

Ooops! NVM. I just realized I was replying to a banned member....

Originally posted by neo96
already know how that survey is going to turn out theres nothing new there same things i have been reading for over a year on here.

government has zero blame wall street is evil and we want our "Free stuff" same thing the current potus campaigned on.

theres not one original thought among that crowd.

Keep crying about it. The people have spoken and your "wealth creator" buddies need to learn some humility.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


whose spoken the people? yeah thats laughable just a bunch of angry liberals

same crap different day different thread.

Originally posted by expat2368
I believe these protests are encouraged by the Obama socialist/communist followers and that Obama and his billion dollar machine will work to bring things to a boil in the months preceding the election.

The playbook is right out of "Mein Kampf"

Wrong. This goes far beyond Obama. Most of the protesters are disillusioned with Obama.

Right out of Mein Kampf?? PROVE IT. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about, I'm serious. This is the OPPOSITE of a nazi uprising... you wanna see a potential nazi uprising?? Check out some of the tea party rallies... I'd be much more afraid of those joke shows.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by katseyes

 

Perhaps not directly. But just as the "tea party" has been hijacked by conservative/republican concerns and media, expect this "herbal tea party" to be similarly hijacked by liberal/democrat concerns and media.

Doubtful.

The group of scared dummies in the tea-party were FAR easier to hijack than the occupy movement will be. If you look at the beginnings, organization, strategies, grievances, belief-sets, and diversity of the occupy movement... then you cannot pretend that it's the same thing as the tea party and just as prone to equal hijacking, because it's not. That's like saying Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same... actually, it's even more egregious/inaccurate. They're not exactly the same (one is a lesser evil). And the occupy movement is something that is capable of NET GOOD, while the tea party has devolved into corporatism, xenophobia, leader-worship, science-aversion, and all manner of uneducated crap. This is unlikely with OWS.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

whose spoken the poople? yeah thats laughable just a bunch of angry liberals

same crap different day different thread.

Get a grip on reality. Once again I ask you- why do you present yourself as some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary... with your name, your avatar, some of the things you say... then when it comes down to it, you FIGHT those who TRULY resist the system and side with TPTB and the status quo? I've seen you TIME AND TIME AGAIN side with corporations, government, military, police, Capitalism, liberal-hatreds, red-scare mentalities, anti-environmentalism. You never answered my question before: are you being paid to dress up as the opposite of what you are on public forums like this??

reply to post by NoHierarchy


oh my grip on reality is quite clear bunch of ows people to too scared about anyone questioning ows going around telling them to sit down shut up and saying dont you dare say nothing bad about it.

this is america dissent is patriotic and dude everything was slung at the tpm and they stood their wrath i smell fear

pure fear about those who support ows.

sorry freedom of speech here in america deal.

Originally posted by Resonant

Originally posted by neo96
already know how that survey is going to turn out theres nothing new there same things i have been reading for over a year on here.

government has zero blame wall street is evil and we want our "Free stuff" same thing the current potus campaigned on.

theres not one original thought among that crowd.

I think you have a skewed view of what people want out of this.

For instance, I would have to say government is almost completely to blame. Wall Street and the world's financial institutions have taken to scalping the populous, not necessarily out of "evil" intention, but because their ability to make profits under a free market have been dramatically challenged by the overabundance of pointless and counter-intuitive regulation. The only individual firms that can survive in this climate are ones that take cutthroat actions against the consumer (e.g. constantly passing government tax and levy along through price increases, wage cuts, or layoffs). In addition, social welfare, in other words "free stuff", are a cancer to the economy, the only incentives the government receives are votes. The majority of social welfare programs (there are rightful exceptions) do nothing to actually stimulate the economy, and put an incentive on not working as hard, not producing as much, and not taking personal responsibility.

Seriously??
I have to ask you- HOW did you get brainwashed into this crap?? Seriously, HOW did you let yourself fall for that crap??

The economic collapse was NOT due to over-regulation, it was due to UNDER-regulation and silencing of whistle-blowers both within and without the government. Those on Wall Street were ADMITTEDLY on a free-ride to do whatever they pleased in the name of greed, free markets, manipulation of government, and risky gambles/economic games.

Why don't you ask the people of France, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Finland, or Norway if their social welfare (or "free stuff" as you put it) is a cancer of society. You'll get a much different story. Then try asking people in cutthroat, every-man-for-himself countries if it's so damn rosy... ask them if the wealthy take good care of them. If you can go back in time to the early industrial age, you can ask the child/sweatship laborers too. Your notion that welfare makes people lazy is a COMPLETE MYTH. People need to work and the vast majority of people who use social welfare systems REALLY NEED IT and are greatly assisted in life by such programs within our economic system. Social safety nets are EVEN good for BUSINESS!!! Can't figure out how that could be? I'm not surprised, but you should easily be able to. Read this:

In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

oh my grip on reality is quite clear bunch of ows people to too scared about anyone questioning ows going around telling them to sit down shut up and saying dont you dare say nothing bad about it.

this is america dissent is patriotic and dude everything was slung at the tpm and they stood their wrath i smell fear

pure fear about those who support ows.

sorry freedom of speech here in america deal.

WRONG again. What "ows people" want is for people blatantly LYING, exaggerating, or propagandizing about the movement to sit down and shut up (and rightfully so). At least... speaking for myself, that's what I want.

Dissent is surely a part of our rights as citizens... but what you're doing is dissenting against the dissenters because they're dissenting... and while that's your right, it certainly doesn't give you a badge of being anti-establishment or pro-the-people.

Nobody's forcing you to shut up with anything other than facts/ideas. If you cant handle it then... for your own peace of mind, I'd suggest shutting up. Otherwise, don't expect ME to let people like you go off about some commie-conspiracy and blah blah blah, free markets are god, blah blah blah, bunch of hippie-liberals, blah blah. If I wanted to hear that, I'd watch Glenn Beck... but see, I'd never do that willingly unless I wanted a good laugh at his propaganda.

reply to post by morder1

I dont really know how to answer this, because laws are put in place by the very people who are being protested against...and the punishment lessened for those who enfoce the laws, compared to the "peons/people"

Thought about that too. However it is my belief that real and lasting change can only occur from non-violent protest. Violence is an excuse for the oppressing side to do as they will. Violence if it comes must come from the other side, and if it comes it must be met by passive resistance. This is my belief though I must add that this doesn't mean I think we should all melt down our guns tonight. The presence of guns is a deterrent certainly, but I really feel that is their only purpose.

Of course if you resurrected a few lost souls from East Timor, they would probably disagree with me, but the other side is always wishing to appear to be the right side, and always looking to seem as though they are responding to an aggressor. You know; "He started it!" Even Hitler made sure that he had someone else to blame for starting it, so obviously starting violence falls right into their hands.

I do have to admit that passive resistance to our Armed Forces is a frightening thought, but that is how I see it. I just hope loss of a free press will not render this historical lesson outdated.