ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I am one of 'Them' that dare slam the OWS, I believe that many commenters on the folks there, and what they are doing, or think they are doing, haven't really looked hard enough at who is funding-instigating-the OWS squatters. Do the research, ignore main stream media sources as they are...well...part of the problem anyway. Most of the participants are broke..jobless...and many other things. Listen to them sometime. Really, they are sounding like a group of morons...honestly, I could go on and supply you with many 'facts' about the real sources who are instigating these OWS's around the U.S., but i think you can do this all by your self. You are obviously a bright individual. Stuff is happening quickly, and its about to go nuts around the world, everywhere. We are all going to be affected, and all the OWS's in the world aren't going to be able to do a darned thing about it. Even with a new President that can begin to un-tangle the big mess that Obama has/is creating, the new Prez, can only slow things down. We are spiraling down the rabbit hole way to fast to reverse it. We are screwed..blued...and tattooed. Anyway....God Help Us.....PLEASE!!

The problem I personally have with the OWS movement is that most of the protestors are complaining that the fire burned them, not that they put their own hand in it. They blame capitalism, or banks, or investment houses, or rich people, or corporations, or...anything but but the people that gave power to those entities: Congress. There are those few that are part of the movement trying to bring this to light, but they are far and few between.

They are attacking the rich because the rich have the money to be taken. It's like a person that slips in a store on a just-mopped floor. They don't go after the person that mopped the floor (the one responsible for making it slippery); they go after the store (the one with the money). Greed, anyone?

I supported the TEA Party before it become a political tool of the ultra-right, when it was a true grass-roots movement by citizens tired of being game pieces on the political chessboard. OWS has the capability to be the same thing the TEA Party was, but now it, too, is being hijacked. Democrats, faux humanitarians like Michael Moore, unions, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party have all joined in because for some reason they believe the OWS represents their ideals. And, just like the new TEA Party, with racists and corporate interests, OWS hasn't banded together and kicked them out.

Also just like the TEA Party, the company you keep says everything I need to know about you.

/TOA

Originally posted by Sphoenix

The masses are not willing to put in the few hours/days of effort to seek the revolution they would benefit from. We are dividing ourselves (like so many people here have already said) into the 99% and haves / have nots.

We are not dividing ourselves so along the (predetermined by others) break lines because of a few factors.

1) No one can put forth a coherent and unified mission statement for this "movement". People who join something that they don't even know what is are just "joiners", not "revolutionaries". If you want more converts, put forth a clear, concise, unified, and most importantly LIMITED statement of goals. It has to be focused. Right now, the "stated goals" are all over the map, and have no limit to their scope. Thinkers are not going to sign on for a program that may exceed it's scope later and bite them in their OWN asses.

2) It has to be shown HOW this movement is to provide any "benefits" for us. That goes right back to point 1 - no goal, no benefit, unlimited goals, potential severely negative consequences.

3) It has to have a defined and uncontradictory target. "The rich" is not very defined, and is contradictory when they give "the rich" on a particular side of the political fence a pass simply because of their politics. If, as alleged, it is truly "apolitical", then stop handing out political favoritism at a whim, stop using divisive political rhetoric, and stop accepting endorsements from overtly political groups. This last is a biggie - it is what was the downfall of the "Tea party". By accepting endorsements from overtly political groups, those same groups got a toe hold with which to co-opt the Tea Party.

Now, keeping that in mind, look to see WHO is endorsing OWS, and you will see WHO is going to use it's momentum for their own nefarious ends.

Nope, I'm not signing on for THAT!

I can understand your frustration OP, maybe not to your extent. But every single one of us, in my opinion, carries the greatest level of change which no-one could possibly predict. Until we as connected individuals understand the magnitude of true free will that exists within us - the powers that be will be running the show - simply because we are letting them.

Now THAT I can agree with, with one caveat. You don't need a "connection" as a "connected individual" to realize the great potential for change, the true free will that lies within. All you have to do is call it forth and exercise it. If a collective of others is doing so at the same time, fine, but if they are not, don't let that stop you. Be YOU be an INDIVIDUAL, Free YOURSELF. A connected collective is irrelevant to YOUR freedom.

All you have to do is demand and exercise it, even when all alone. Until you free yourself, as an individual, you will NEVER free anyone else, and I care not how big of a collective you can hive around you.

reply to post by paradox7

Stuff is happening quickly, and its about to go nuts around the world, everywhere.

We are all going to be affected, and all the OWS's in the world aren't going to be able to do a darned thing about it.

We are spiraling down the rabbit hole way to fast to reverse it. We are screwed..blued...and tattooed.

So you seem to agree that things are looking pretty bad.

Most of the participants are broke..jobless...and many other things.

Ok. So why can't Occupy and the people who are attending be seen as an authentic and righteous social expression that is being fostered and fomented by the very things you have pointed out as being problems?

These are very real pressures and forces which have very real consequences when applied. Why can't these people be that?

Why are you seemingly making a distinction? Because you don't like the way they look? You don't like that they are unemployed? You don't like that they are f$!@kng broke?

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

VERY well said, Good on you!

I've observed this behavior as well, and find it both amusing and disgusting. It is an indication of just how much TPTB feared, and still fears the hippy philosophy... put a few skinny kids with scraggly beards on a protest line, and all of a sudden it's THE HIPPIES!!! Run for the hills, the hippies are going to get you!

S&F... a thousand if I could...

Very well said Walking Fox. I also give you a star and flag for this thread of yours since I feel EXACTLY the same as you and Open Minded Skeptic here who I gave a vote up as well. These thoughts mimic mine exactly in response to your very well written and well stated thread. If I could give you more stars and flags I would.
It is kind of strange and perhaps some kind of a mistake but it appears the post was removed for being off topic. It was exactly like this one...I copied the quote of Open Minded Skeptic and said me too, I agree or something like that and gave a few of these to both you and pen Minded Skeptic. Must have been some kind of mistake is all I can figure. In case anyone is wondering what topic I am referring to here it is to Walking Fox's original post and the topic of this thread. I am on topic - totally as I was before. Maybe people are deliberately being discouraged from agreeing with you? All I can figure.

Originally posted by theRhenn
Oh I very much agree that there are many socialists that want wealth in the US to be distributed to the lazy assed poor who dont get up at 5am

Maybe they do get up at 5 am. Maybe they are providing for themselves at a useless job. Maybe they think this is a ridiculous way to live. They are up against people who have bought into the system to various degrees and in various roles. That's a lot of people to be up against. They're up against the slaves and the masters. They're up against their own government. They're up against apathy. I often mention Occupy to people and am met with "What are you talking about?" Many people are only interested in the news of births and deaths. They're zoo animals. I read Henry Rollins thinks Occupy is working becasue the MSM pundits are theatrically slamming it. It's their job to preach to the choir. They are just capitalizing on those traditionally and vehemently defending the status quo. The audience is defending their own fleecing. Taking advantage of you fellow human is the American way. It is to be defended to the belligerent death.

Occupy are asking the people who make and defend the rules to change them. This is why I think Occupy should walk away. They should leave the system in droves and start self sufficient communes. They will be out of the oppressive neurotic system that aggressively resists change. They will have each other for comfort and enjoyment. They can attract others who are down and out, or who are looking to get out. They would definitely be talked about in the area as a novelty. In surrounding towns, people will say, "If it all goes to Hell, I can always move out to that commune." They will, too. If enough people leave the system, it won't be able to sustain itself.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


To be honest OP, the protesters in the London camp are mocked and derided by the majority of the British public because some are old, unwashed hippies that have been protesting since the 60s, some are anarchists that wanna cause trouble, the majority are well educated students from wealthy families and all of them honestly have no clue what they're camped there for.

People have asked them what their protest is about and they ahd about 100 different answers. Some sections of the British media have applauded the American "Occupy" groups for at least knowing what they're even there for.

Oh and me personally, I've never said any of those things about things needing to change and the system is broken or anything like that. I am struggling to feed myself and dirt poor constantly being mistreated by the Department for Work and Pensions for the last few years but I don't agree with what the Occupy groups are doing.

Originally posted by The Old American
The problem I personally have with the OWS movement is that most of the protestors are complaining that the fire burned them, not that they put their own hand in it. They blame capitalism, or banks, or investment houses, or rich people, or corporations, or...anything but but the people that gave power to those entities: Congress. There are those few that are part of the movement trying to bring this to light, but they are far and few between.

The trouble is, there's a "feedback loop" between Wall Street and congress. Wall Street buys congress. Congress passes legislation to give wall street more money. Wall Street uses this money to buy even more influence... See how it goes?

Now, while it would be just great if we could assemble a complete team of 500 incorruptable, pure, America-minded legislators to put into office, get them all elected, and have everything turn out great, it does seem a little far-fetched. Besides, there is already a mechanic in place to deal with bad legislators - voting. Screaming at them while they're securely in office isn't going to change anything, so long as they keep getting their checks.

The other part of the equation however, is much easier to disrupt. it is possible through assembly and outcry to put pressure on the "money" side of the loop, which in turn creates pressure on the lawmaking part - either by hte "money" becoming a greater liability than incentive, or through the sources of that money working in their own self-interest to appease the workers, customers, and yes, voters that htye need to exist.

They are attacking the rich because the rich have the money to be taken. It's like a person that slips in a store on a just-mopped floor. They don't go after the person that mopped the floor (the one responsible for making it slippery); they go after the store (the one with the money). Greed, anyone?

Actually your example is because a business is expected to take responsibility for its employees and the conditions within its own establishment. I'm sure many here would love to utterly do away with this concept of, you know, taking responsibility (after all, business is people, except when it's time to pay the dues, you know)

Second, it's not about "going after the rich." You're rich? Awesome, go frot yourself in ecstatic bliss against your pile of benjamins. Whatever makes you happy. However, it's the use of wealth to subvert the democratic institutions of our country that is the problem. Now, TOA, I'm sure you have a problem with the idea that Lee Raymond's bank account has vastly more influence in Washington than your vote does, right? I'm sure you have a problem with "the elite," as some put it, literally buying legislation that benefits themselves and screws others over.

So why make up this cocoon of make-believe that it's all about "let's eat the rich"?

I supported the TEA Party before it become a political tool of the ultra-right, when it was a true grass-roots movement by citizens tired of being game pieces on the political chessboard. OWS has the capability to be the same thing the TEA Party was, but now it, too, is being hijacked. Democrats, faux humanitarians like Michael Moore, unions, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party have all joined in because for some reason they believe the OWS represents their ideals. And, just like the new TEA Party, with racists and corporate interests, OWS hasn't banded together and kicked them out.

Kicked them out by what means? I know that some posters here are salivating at the thought of eruptions of violence, but really? There's no good way to go "hey, get the hell out of here" and make it actually work.

Further, you actually make no argument as to why they should. Unions, democrats, Michael Moore? These are your wide-eyed, white-knuckled bugbears, and I'm not seeing any reason we should accede to your factless checklist of who you consider "teh bad peoples"

Also just like the TEA Party, the company you keep says everything I need to know about you.

/TOA

So if i say "I really like The Old American," does that mean you're going ot radically hange your views? No, of course not. because that mentality is just dumb. Using that anyone could say "Hey, I really support this" and thereby "taint" it. Again, reality does not work this way.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

And i see you often griping about crime, but I'll bet you've never arrested anyone. You point out bad legislation, but aren't running for office, are you? Maybe your shoes pinch your feet, I don't see you opening a shoe company. And the reason is simple - it's not your job, is it? The police are there to handle crime when we call on it. The politicians are there to follow our voices when we see a problem. The company is there to provide the best quality for its consumers (ideally, in all three cases - reality is, of course, rather different.)

wtf are you even talking about? What logical fallacy is this? Are you insinuating that it's not OWS job to offer solutions to issues they raise?

The trouble you might be having is that while none of these solutions are actually "Vote Democrat," none of them are "vote republican," either.

I'm an advocate of 3rd parties personally, thanks for asking. OWS is a Democratic front, if we went down there and polled the protesters the vast majority would admit to voting for Democrats and plans to do so in the future. People like you would like to say that this is not a partisan protest/movement but IT IS .. sadly.

You are an awesome spokesperson for the movement though .. your zealous fervor for OWS, and knowing that you are one of the most Progressive Liberals on ATS I think that pretty much sums up the movement, doesn't it?

So excuse me for not aligning with your politics

God forbid I think for myself and ask critical questions about a movement before I throw my name in as a supporter.

Sheeple indeed

reply to post by curious7


Reading your post, I was reminded of an early interview with Ninja, Yolandi, and whatever the DJ's name is for Die Antwoord. In this interview, they are in their neighborhood standing against a wall, and the interviewer asks this emerging rap group from South Africa what Die Antwoord means. Ninja, in his tough guy practiced petulance does this pffffft kind of think and janking his hands say's something to the effect of "whatever".

Whatever? I actually like this group Die Antwoord, but it came as no surprise to me that this interview was used to deride the group and laugh at them. If you are going to call your group "the answer" it is probably best you have some idea of what that answer is. Conversely, if you are going to claim to be a world wide movement representing the "99%", it is probably more than prudent you know what the hell you are doing.

Originally posted by gentledissident
Occupy are asking the people who make and defend the rules to change them. This is why I think Occupy should walk away. They should leave the system in droves and start self sufficient communes. They will be out of the oppressive neurotic system that aggressively resists change. They will have each other for comfort and enjoyment. They can attract others who are down and out, or who are looking to get out. They would definitely be talked about in the area as a novelty. In surrounding towns, people will say, "If it all goes to Hell, I can always move out to that commune." They will, too. If enough people leave the system, it won't be able to sustain itself.

edit on 5-11-2011 by gentledissident because: the letter "a"

I can't agree with this. no. "Dropping out" accomplishes nothing. Did running out to the woods to make flower garlands and eat cake frosting stop Vietnam? Nope. Did "dropping out" accomplish anything back in Ye Olden Hippie Days"? Again, no. I mean I guess it madethe people involved feel better, but it didn't have the desired effect of "Hey, if we all stop engaging the system, it'll stop!"

That's not true. if enough people "drop out" of the system, then all that happens is that the operation of the system is determined by the people who don't ditch.

Engagement is the only method to elicit change.

Originally posted by Frater210

If I am a leftist, anarchist, socialist; what are you then that stands in opposition to these things?

Uhhh.... wouldn't that make him a rightist, rule-of-law, individualist sort of guy?

Are you saying rule of law and individualism are BAD things?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Now, while it would be just great if we could assemble a complete team of 500 incorruptable, pure, America-minded legislators to put into office, get them all elected, and have everything turn out great, it does seem a little far-fetched. Besides, there is already a mechanic in place to deal with bad legislators - voting.

Voting? Who is there to vote for? Do you think if 1 lone honest person somehow got past the country club, that the person would be allowed to make a difference? As you say, it does seem a little far-fetched.

ok so one leaves ones self open to ridicule ,a bunch of unwashed hippies .where do you get the credibility for your actions . Example the vietnam protests had a defined goal to stop the mindless slaughter of young and old for some political gain . why not start a movement called we agree . we agree to killing the whales ,the banks ripping the heart out of the working people ,cutting down all the trees to make toilet paper out of them . everyone dresses in business suits . what then ? capsicum spray the we agree group its beyond ridiculous wait and see what devil arises out of the recent protests .the children running the school without teachers will fall under the boot of the school bullies .Dont get me wrong i do agree that something has to be done , but get ready for the result . more power to the jack boot elite

Yet another thread that I reach page 3 of and just let out a huge, cold sigh.

The initial read was good though, props to you Fox for actually speaking about it. Much of the internet is very misanthropical in this age. I never lump people into one category, but the news-dependant, Facebook users, are as good as a categorization can be. I really duck in and shoot with most posts on the internet, and I don't even feel bothered to reply to most threads on here. I mean, it's not because I'm grandiose and in favour of my own opinion, it's more or less about how predictable responses are in this age.

I only visit mainstream news sites to see what mumbo jumbo they're getting on with. The sad thing is watching all of these people getting into trolling for the first time. Not even clever either, just like, flat out mocking dead people and saying pretty horrible things, and it's everywhere!

Lately I get this unending feeling of unease, it follows me daily, but it's there just to remind me that I can't take everything I put upon myself, and that I'd probably be better off living ignorant in bliss than reading about ANYTHING anymore. It just bothers me and annoys me too much in general. I miss the days when no one could use the internet well and MSN was the tool of communication while online, and people, from my journeys, seemed more caring and interested, than so "self informed" and righteous.

OWS is about what the greed in this nation does to it's peoples. The signs are reminder of what has been wronged by greed. Greed is slowly taking a hold in this country and now it shows even more when an average joe smo cannot feed or take care of their family due to a list of problems with the system. I will name a few. Health care, rising costs of housing, buisness going over seas, gov't over spending, bailouts, cost of living keeps going up, wages go down or cannot keep up with the pace of, social security,corporate bank greed,higher taxes. The problem is that greed has infiltrated in so many places and leaves the average jo holding nothing to feed the family with. EXAMPLE: A single person who makes 13 an hour 40 hours a week is 520 before taxes. Ok, i will estimate after taxes. Minus 85 fed.,40 state=$395 a week after taxes times 4 weeks =$1580 minus bills. OK, a $850 month rent,a $65 phone bill,a $90 electric bill,a $50 a week gas car to go to work,$200 month food,car insurance $45 month, THIS leaves you with only $130 dollars left for the month and i am not done with the bills yet. The figures i used is from an apartment with an electric range since most apts. don't use gas here. OK, now what to do with the $130. I left that to the save portion or in case of emergency money to fix the car, health,or whatever bill comes my way that i figure that i may need. Like to buy cloths, oil for car,car repairs, t.v,computer,and all others that i did not list ALL THIS money comes out of this WOPPING $130. a month on $13 dollars an hour. I cannot see how a single parent with children can even make ends meet with this income, but that is what most buisnesses give as a wage to workers and if you there long enough you might be getting $15. AND if you just get hired, you can bet to start out between $9-13hr depending on your exsperience. WHAT A JOKE. Then they act like you family and 5 years down the road they lay you off and go overseas. WTF. And you and i are supposed to hold our heads up and soak it all in and do it all over again WHILE the greedy little pig gobbles up all your money and laughs in your face. I say yeah they getting fed up with the SH#. Every sign i see by OWS is a sign of where this greed had it's hand in and is getting worse by the minute. ALL THEY KNOW HOW to do is take and take and take and take. SICK. AND do they care about you, NO WAY. They want you to slave to make them more money. SICK. NOW they want even more money in taxes to pay for an escalation in the debt that they themselves made by poor management of finances to the country. WHAT A JOKE. Then laugh in our face and hand out bailout money to banks who just gave themselves raises. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. SO yeah, i believe that the infastructure here needs fixing and starting with the GREEDERS and cut them ALL off. I have no pitty for a man like mad off who MADE OFF with a whole bunch of stolen money. This is exactly this kind of activity that got us in trouble in the first place. All these greeders ruined america. They make up laws to protect themselves when they rob us blind. SICK. Then they put up a granite stone called the guidestones. Which blatently tells you what they are going to do to you. America is dead, lost, gone, no more. so yeah, it needs definate repairs.

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Noam Chomsky is a leftist anarchist socialist, so you just outed yourself as one. Thanks

Yeah, well, it is too bad for you then that virtually all of what is considered to be perennial wisdom ends up sounding, to people like you, like something based on a 'leftist', 'anarchist' or 'socialist' ideology.

You should consider an overhaul of your lexicon.

But I am interested , you have my attention now.

If I am a leftist, anarchist, socialist; what are you then that stands in opposition to these things?

Thanks in advance.

If you are for the OWS and their Statist agenda and their particular style of protest with violence and ahem other things, it is not surprising you like Chomsky.

Here is a taste of Chomskyism, which you seem to call wisdom and I call massive propagandist ideology.

“This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting,” Chomsky said. “I mean it’s scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. When Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, even below Carter. If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office the United States was the world’s leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the world’s leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible.”

“This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting,” Chomsky said. “I mean it’s scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. When Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, even below Carter. If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office the United States was the world’s leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the world’s leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible.”

mnprager.wordpress.com...


Here is an alternate view of Reagan

It appears that liberals in America, particularly those that are employed as journalists and academic professionals, believe former President Ronald Reagan did more harm than good during his eight years in the Oval Office.

And as usual when these individuals are actually pressed as to why they have come to the conclusion that Reagan’s legacy was a “nightmare” (see Ed Bradley) little evidence is ever provided outside of the quintessential talking points handed out by the DNC.

Ironically it only takes about five minutes on Google to figure out that Democrats love invoking the legacies of FDR and John Fitzgerald Kennedy when making their point that only government entitlements will save America.
So in other words when conservatives compare themselves to Mr. Reagan they are despicably tarnishing the image of the former president while holding little knowledge about what his administration actually did. Because we all know that championing state’s rights, strengthening America’s economy, ending the Cold-War and reducing the size of government are outrageous ideas that should be shoved under a door mat for eternity.

However when liberals align themselves to someone like FDR who imprisoned Japanese minorities, raised taxes on just about everyone, expanded the size of government to unprecedented levels, and prolonged the Great Depression, they believe they have reached political nirvana.

pundithouse.com...

Originally posted by Rockpuck

wtf are you even talking about? What logical fallacy is this? Are you insinuating that it's not OWS job to offer solutions to issues they raise?

Just as it's not your job to arrest and prosecute people for the crimes you see, yes. The point of protest is to call attention to a problem.

I'm an advocate of 3rd parties personally, thanks for asking. OWS is a Democratic front, if we went down there and polled the protesters the vast majority would admit to voting for Democrats and plans to do so in the future. People like you would like to say that this is not a partisan protest/movement but IT IS .. sadly.

I don't think you grasp what "partisan" means. Nobody's out there stumping for Obama or rallying for Democratic party votes. yes, you'll find a lot of people out there who have, and will vote Democratic. As one of them, I'll tell you why.

because Democrats offer a speedbump in the road to destruction the Republicans want to drive us down. it's not much of a speedbump, but 0.0001 is still larger than 0, isn't it? The third parties are either jokes (I'm looking at you, Greens) or are worse than the republicans. Unless this nation manifest an actual left party - and I've heard talk among OWS of doing exactly that - the Democrats, in all their useless ineptitude, are, unfortunately the best we can hope for.

Really, our nation is more or less split between two parties, voter-wise. Claiming that people in a group trend a particular way makes it "partisan" doesn't really make sense. Maybe once they start waving campaign signs, like the tea party ended up doing... or outright taking funding from the DNC, or something?

You are an awesome spokesperson for the movement though .. your zealous fervor for OWS, and knowing that you are one of the most Progressive Liberals on ATS I think that pretty much sums up the movement, doesn't it?

So your basic gripe is "I hate liberals?" Am I reading you correctly on that? yes, I'm a liberal - I actually prefer the term "leftist" and have pretty much nothing but scorn for "progressive" (it was just a silly attempt to relabel because "liberal" upset the fascists too much. Go figure) And yes, I very much support OWS.

So excuse me for not aligning with your politics

Mi política es la política. I think we're probably a great deal closer than you know. it's just that you have a lot of indoctrinated "librulz iz bad" stuff to work through. simple question. Do you feel that money should have a greater say in our political system than votes? yes or no?

God forbid I think for myself and ask critical questions about a movement before I throw my name in as a supporter.

Sheeple indeed

By all means. Ask them. Just be ready for the answer to be different than the one you've already concocted.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
That's not true. if enough people "drop out" of the system, then all that happens is that the operation of the system is determined by the people who don't ditch.

Well then, they'll get to play their silly little game together until there are no more. What difference would it make to us who are part of a new world?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
running out to the woods to make flower garlands and eat cake frosting

I'm pretty sure you understand this isn't the dropping out I'm talking about. You're pretty quick to pull out that "dirty hippie" weapon yourself.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Did "dropping out" accomplish anything back in Ye Olden Hippie Days"?

No, "dropping out" in the 60's didn't give us anything but regime change. Welcome your new ex-hippie masters. Then again, we're not talking about the same thing. Perhaps later we can talk about aquaponics and fuel cells.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


OK, I'm game to listen.

What ARE the solutions being floated by OWS?