Do You Fear Change? Is That Why You Do Not Support OWS?

reply to post by sheepslayer247


No I am not scared. I am informed and prepared.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well said!

I can agree. What we need to understand is that this initial Occupy movement will only serve as the catalyst to reform such issues. This is simply the birth of a movement that will have to eventually address truths such as you describe. What's important is that the door has been opened that leads to those discussions.

The door for these discussion has always been open. I don't know if you're paying much attention the tenor and tone of some of the posters in this site who are vehemently defending the movement from anything that even remotely looks like criticism, but there are quite a few who seem to think duplicating a French Revolution and it's stunningly shameful Reign of Terror is a real good idea. It is no coincidence that the Reign of Terror came right at the same time that Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason were on the wane. Indeed, it is arguable that the Reign of Terror was a watershed event earmarking the death of the Age of Enlightenment.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
OWS is reckless.

I think that people should embrace this country for the freedoms and opportunities that safeguard Liberty and Freedom.

Without it, their is only tyranny, that is where the OWS will take this country.

Think OWS will accomplish nothing? I disagree, unfortunately it will not accomplish anything of worth.

To say that OWS will not accomplish anything of worth is to view OWS as a single, isolated event. No offense or not to attack your opinion in any way, but I believe that people who hold this same belief are just not looking at OWS in a broader scope.

I felt the same way in the beginning, that TPTB will never bow down to peaceful protests. I even (while not abdicating it) bought into the belief that the only way these protests would ever be able to accomplish anything was if they unfortunately were to become violent on the part of the protesters.

However, OWS has already accomplished something of value. It's gotten people talking about what's going on. It's forced the media to cover the story. And that, in and of itself, is something of great value. Just look at how many Occupy protests have sprouted up across the globe. That's why TPTB are truly afraid of this movement, because of the implications it could have on the status quo.

But I look at OWS as just the first step. I believe that OWS will not result in TPTB suddenly bowing to their demands but instead will inspire more revolutionary acts. I think the next successful step will be boycotts. We need to come together and really identify our strengths and advantages over those that have done us a great deal of unconstitutional justice. And one of the biggest weapons we have is our wallets. That's why I think you'll see a lot more boycotts like Bank Transfer Day, that is, if we really want a revolution to happen. We need to do more boycotts.

reply to post by whaaa


Whaaa, you have to admit though that you can't claim the entire OWS movement peaceful and organized by just visiting one event yourself.

Hell, even if you were in the NYC OWS, you can't claim that every part of it was the same as what you witnessed.

The fact is that there are people giving OWS a bad name...and it is the fault of OWS for not being organized and not having a clear message.

That is why I won't fully get behind it until it can organize itself and I can actually see what I'm supporting.

Originally posted by PosterNutbag
Great post OP. I have found fear to be a great motivator of much opposition from fellow Americans on the OWS movement. I have also noticed that most of the opposition to this movement stems from ignorance of "the way things work" in our system. People who see the US and the World through the MSM and are unwilling or fearful of stepping out of the box to think for themselves oppose this change. If you live your life to strive for the next material success you can acquire and not see "the big picture" of how life can really be rewarding, then you probably oppose OWS.

Please...

now I know why I come here (I.E. to learn what it is "I think" from others):

I attended teaparty rallies: folks here think they know what all teapartiers think; what their motives are;oh yeah and their inherent racism;
And I might add: are not one bit shy to tell you! You think "x"& believe"Y";

Now: if you oppose "ows" its because you suffer from limited vision;excessive materialism Or suffer from terminal success.
Not buying any today: thanks.

Please...

Sounds all "lofty" ;but You don't know anything of the kind.

"You people" have no answers other than burn it down /string 'em up.

Then what? Expect our 300+million to live in "love and light?and good intentions? Get back to me with a viable alternative.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I believe that is a viable concern. I would hope that we could learn from the past as we move forward and not fear what may be ahead, just because of the past. IMO, a change must come and this is a way to create that change. We cannot allow the violent or politically motivated people take the lead.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I believe that is a viable concern. I would hope that we could learn from the past as we move forward and not fear what may be ahead, just because of the past. IMO, a change must come and this is a way to create that change. We cannot allow the violent or politically motivated people take the lead.

All I keep hearing from those who represent themselves as a part of this movement is that they "have no leaders". A leaderless group is generally the first to fall prey to tyranny.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by whaaa

 

Whaaa, you have to admit though that you can't claim the entire OWS movement peaceful and organized by just visiting one event yourself.

Hell, even if you were in the NYC OWS, you can't claim that every part of it was the same as what you witnessed.

The fact is that there are people giving OWS a bad name...and it is the fault of OWS for not being organized and not having a clear message.

That is why I won't fully get behind it until it can organize itself and I can actually see what I'm supporting.

You are correct OKS
I don't know how other OWS events are transpiring but here in the High desert rockies the message is clear against the Kleptopracy and the corporate corruption and greed. And I might add that there are a lot of very pretty women in attendance that seem to be wanting some company; and As passionate as I am about exercising my constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and speech; doesn't mean that earthly pleasures and passion will be ignored by this red blooded American working man and patriot. Sometimes ATS pails in comparison to real face to face contact....

adios, I've got a date with one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The same thing can be said for movements with leaders who take the helm and then direct the people into their idea of reform that the leader deems fit.

Isn't that what Saddam Hussain did.....and Hitler? So that could happen at both ends of the spectrum.

What matters is how we the people allow it to progress and to pull it back to sanity when it sways either way.

Obama's Change or Change in general?

Obama is too incompetent and too skinny to inspire fear.

I don't support OWS because it has no coherrent message and is ineffective.

Not to mention it was SEIU and various other union elements supporting it.

Most of the OWS people seem to be ill informed and have no real idea on what the solution is.


The core problem in this country is: Not only is there a lack of equal enforcement of the law, but those with political connections bend and actually write the laws to their favor.

We have cronyism not capitalism. Capitialism requires a strong government to enforce our rights to compete on equal ground. Government contracts are given to those with connections instead of who can provide the best product/service at the fairest price. ($400 hammers)

OWS seems to be a bunch of liberal douche bags that blame Wall Street because they don't have the guts to admit that Obama and their democrat politicians are no better than Bush and the Republicans were. Guess what? Wall Street has put more money into middle class bank accounts than the government has. I have more to show for the 7% a year I put into 401K than the 30% a year I pay in taxes!

Dodd wrote the law that led to Fannie/Freddie fiasco, Bush just signed it. Corruption is truly bipartisan.

reply to post by AP-Chris


I am talking about a change from the obviously corrupt system in place today, while maintaining the constitution and such. I don't see what Obama really has to do with it other than he is just as much the problem as Bush or any other Republican.

I don't support OWS because it has no coherrent message and is ineffective.

I disagree. Their message is simple: "HELP! We are being screwed!" If creating a multi-state (possibly international) new level of awareness is ineffective than I suppose that is a proper label.

Not to mention it was SEIU and various other union elements supporting it.

Key word: Support. They do not run it or attempt to co-opt the movement. They have the right to protest, but the minute they attempt to take control I will be right next to you screaming bloody murder.

I have more to show for the 7% a year I put into 401K than the 30% a year I pay in taxes!

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Not a good comparison considering that most people have lost a huge percentage their 401k was worth, but they still have roads to drive on and other public goods to show for their taxes.

Look, I can agree with some of your beliefs and you are right, but to think that this has anything to do with just Obama or Unions is wrong. The blame does not fall on the left side of politics alone. Both sides are complicit. Are you willing to step away from the talking points and talk about truths? It seems from your post as though you may be listening to Hannity too much.

Well people in my city don't even know anything about the protest, and they might end it early if they don't get the support they need.

reply to post by whaaa

adios, I've got a date with one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.

Well, I guess no one can say OWS never accomplished anything


You go show that lady what America is all about

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You put me in the wrong box there. I HATE Hannity!

If I sound like I lean to the right it is because I have been self employed for almost 12 years.

Greed and corruption is rampant in this country and the poor are just as guilty as the rich when it comes to that.

If one puts money into something and expects more in return than what one has put in, they must realize that it comes at the expense of someone else. That's just the way it is.

Am I guilty of that? Sure! I have bought and sold stocks and made good returns. Returns on companies that cut benifits to employees and laid off thousands to maintain their stock prices and I profitted off that.

Do I feel guilty about that? No. Why?
Because I pay far more in taxes than I receive in services from the government...so that those who pay less, or not at all, will receive beneifits far in excess of what they have contributed.

This inequality is the base of our system. It is unfair and could not even exist if it was fair!

Once people realize that, then maybe...maybe we can work on a solution.

A movement towards more self sufficiency would be a solution, but would require a low tax rate and no one should be taxed out of their homes. There should be no property tax whatsoever. A home bought with after tax income should not be taxed...Period! Nor should any other property/investment done with after-tax income!

As long as that system exists we will always be slaves. As long as that system exists, I will have to attempt to profit at the expense of others to survive. That is what it does to us, forces us to feed off each other to survive and continue to feed a system that exploits us all.

reply to post by AP-Chris

If one puts money into something and expects more in return than what one has put in, they must realize that it comes at the expense of someone else. That's just the way it is.

If you put your back to the plow and till the land so that it is prepared to be seeded, then you put water into this land so that you may reap a plentiful harvest, and such a harvest is the pay off, whose expense was this? Who got screwed by this?

If you write a novel and then publish this novel and it becomes a best seller, at whose expense was this? Who got screwed because you published a novel you wrote and it actually sold?

If you invent an antigravity machine and sell it to the public and this makes you a gazillion bobabazillionaire, at whose expense was this done? Who got screwed?

reply to post by AP-Chris

You put me in the wrong box there. I HATE Hannity!

Then I apologize. It seemed as though you may have been regurgitating some right-wing rhetoric in your post.

If one puts money into something and expects more in return than what one has put in, they must realize that it comes at the expense of someone else. That's just the way it is.

Either it comes at someone else's expense, or it never actually existed. You may be a step closer to the OWS mentality than you think.

Overall, it seems as though you have a good grasp on how the system works. It's unfair and serves those who are able to manipulate it. Would you be against a change in such a system?

I am against OWS, but not because I fear change.

OWS doesn't have a clear set of demands, and the ones I have heard and seen are so simplistic as to be practically brainless.

-My student loans are too high.

-Big companies are Evil

-Rich people have too much money

-I have a college degree and I can't find a job.

There are certainly economic truths behind every one of the sentiments I heard. But the complainers aren't offering any solutions, and seem more interested in marching than in fixing things.

There IS a huge hard-left bias to the OWS rallies. Just read the signs. In my opinion it's just more party politics, this time dressed in the garb of street theater. I don't believe that them having a #-in at some park in new york is going to make anything better for anyone---it will just convince them that they have a "right" to a better life that someone else ought to be paying for.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by AP-Chris

 

If one puts money into something and expects more in return than what one has put in, they must realize that it comes at the expense of someone else. That's just the way it is.

If you put your back to the plow and till the land so that it is prepared to be seeded, then you put water into this land so that you may reap a plentiful harvest, and such a harvest is the pay off, whose expense was this? Who got screwed by this?

If you write a novel and then publish this novel and it becomes a best seller, at whose expense was this? Who got screwed because you published a novel you wrote and it actually sold?

If you invent an antigravity machine and sell it to the public and this makes you a gazillion bobabazillionaire, at whose expense was this done? Who got screwed?

Good points,
I was referring more narrowly to things like social security. stock market, insurance. Too narrowly I guess.

But, take the ranching and the stock market for example:

You buy a calf for $300, raise it for 3 years and sell it for $2000 = $1700 profit (exclude expenses to keep it simple)

A corporate ranch operation does this with 10,000 cattle and can afford to sell them for less because they have such a high quantity. This drives the price down to $1100

What happens? The indivdual rancher goes broke because he doesn't have enough land to run a large enough herd to make a living at $1100 a head.

That is what corporate america has done to us. That is just reality whether people chose to believe it or not.

The sick reality is that we buy stock in the corporate ranch operation to make up for our income short fall caused by the corporation in the first place!

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by AP-Chris

 

Either it comes at someone else's expense, or it never actually existed. You may be a step closer to the OWS mentality than you think.

Overall, it seems as though you have a good grasp on how the system works. It's unfair and serves those who are able to manipulate it. Would you be against a change in such a system?

I am absolutely for changing the system, but...the keyword here is system.

I understand systems. I have worked within them, on them and developed them.

Systems are designed to withstand a certain amount of losses and still remain successful. Individuals can win small victories against the system, but that is all they usually are. The system "learns" from these individual losses and adapts to make it harder for the next. Historically, any group that did not have a coherrent counter system to fight the system with - loses the overwhelming majority of the time.

In short:
If you want to defeat a system, you must start by creating a system to counter it. If you start fighting before your system is in place you will likely lose.

Now, does anyone have the attention span and patience to create this system?


Here's an idea for a system:
Goldman Sachs and the like use algorithms to trade the majority of stocks on the market:

Sample system: A mutual fund based on a similar algorithm which exploits knowns in their system that all of us can buy.

Or this:

An algorithm that automatically buys stock in all companies that our politicians own stock in as soon as they are elected or stock in the companies their spouses work for!


Systems we design that make money on the same dirty tricks they use to make money on us. What would this do? Dilute their earnings, making them a little weaker and us a little stronger. Closing the gap over time.

Originally posted by AP-Chris

But, take the ranching and the stock market for example:

You buy a calf for $300, raise it for 3 years and sell it for $2000 = $1700 profit (exclude expenses to keep it simple)

A corporate ranch operation does this with 10,000 cattle and can afford to sell them for less because they have such a high quantity. This drives the price down to $1100

What happens? The indivdual rancher goes broke because he doesn't have enough land to run a large enough herd to make a living at $1100 a head.

That is what corporate america has done to us. That is just reality whether people chose to believe it or not.

The sick reality is that we buy stock in the corporate ranch operation to make up for our income short fall caused by the corporation in the first place!

The situation you just outlined is called "Efficiency." The more efficient operation is rewarded with a larger market share. It's not an intentional evil; it's just the free market at work.

Your other choice is to pay ranchers a subsidy, to do their jobs poorly. Or let the small rancher find something that he can market more efficiently than the big operations. Cruelty free beef and antibiotic free beef are two examples that are working.

People innovate because they are driven by the desire to make money. Removing that also removes the reward for doing a good job.