Is Anyone Still Taking OWS Seriously?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah.. now ask yourself where every bit of this is leading?

Oblivion.

Sad that the back room dealers seem to be intent on taking the rest of us with them, but it will lead to oblivion all the same, whether they can actually spark a war or not.

Their end will be the same, whether noisily or quietly.

Oblivion.

The founding fathers would have loved assembling in the parks, Franklin would have probably been taking a new girl into his tent every night, they would have been happy that they didn't have to assemble in complete secrecy in a house. This is what they wanted.

edit on 12-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Baloney.

They had an entire continent of wilderness to assemble on. Biggest. Park. Ever. So why did they not choose that, and assemble instead in Philly and Williamsburg? Why did they petition The Crown for redress instead of declaring The Crown irrelevant and going after the bankers instead?

Baloney.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by PapaKrok

 

It already has numerous times. I'm pretty sure women and blacks can vote now.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

Are you for real? Are you seriously claiming that the womens' suffrage movement and the civil rights movement sat back and wrote letters? You think they applied for permits? Made sure they didn't offend anyone, didn't "infringe on the white man's rights"? I think if you look into the matter, you'll find they did a few things a bit MORE radical and in-your-face than camping in a park.

As someone who HAS been on television, who HAS attended and spoken at city council meertings, HAS written proposals, made cohesive and carefully-written arguments and presented clear demands, I can tell you firsthand: It does not work. As previously stated, the reason these techniques are constantly presented as the only legitimate way to effect change is that they do not work. I know of no movement has ever succeeded without severe personal risk, loss, and death suffered by members of that movement.

You keep saying that "dialogue" with those in power is the only legitimate route to change. Unfortunately, dialogue only occurs when the people you are talking to are listening.

reply to post by nenothtu


I wouldn't doubt that they did meet outside when weather permitted, but they also had businesses and lives to attend. Meeting outside all the time would be absurd. They would have approved of this, they would side with the people no matter what.

reply to post by PocketRevolution

As someone who HAS been on television, who HAS attended and spoken at city council meertings, HAS written proposals, made cohesive and carefully-written arguments and presented clear demands, I can tell you firsthand: It does not work.

Don't get mad at me because you were ineffectual.

You keep saying that "dialogue" with those in power is the only legitimate route to change.

No I don't. I'm saying that occupying public spaces for undetermined amounts of time is not the only legitimate way to encourage change.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I wouldn't doubt that they did meet outside when weather permitted, but they also had businesses and lives to attend. Meeting outside all the time would be absurd. They would have approved of this, they would side with the people no matter what.

I don't know about outdoor meetings, but yes they would and did side with the people, and they had a cohesive plan and a solid message. Those three things alone set them apart from OWS.

No way would they have approved of the haphazard and willy-nilly "methodology" of OWS.

reply to post by Domo1


We sure as hell shouldn't be taking them seriously.

Which is what i've been saying saying since the get-go.

reply to post by nenothtu


Nothing haphazard about it.

Band together, discuss issues, put forth list of complaints, Occupy.
Pretty straight forward.

Congrats, Domo, you got your way and the world will continue to change for the worse.


Good job, bro.

Originally posted by PocketRevolution

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by PapaKrok

 

It already has numerous times. I'm pretty sure women and blacks can vote now.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

Are you for real? Are you seriously claiming that the womens' suffrage movement and the civil rights movement sat back and wrote letters? You think they applied for permits? Made sure they didn't offend anyone, didn't "infringe on the white man's rights"? I think if you look into the matter, you'll find they did a few things a bit MORE radical and in-your-face than camping in a park.

As someone who HAS been on television, who HAS attended and spoken at city council meertings, HAS written proposals, made cohesive and carefully-written arguments and presented clear demands, I can tell you firsthand: It does not work. As previously stated, the reason these techniques are constantly presented as the only legitimate way to effect change is that they do not work. I know of no movement has ever succeeded without severe personal risk, loss, and death suffered by members of that movement.

You keep saying that "dialogue" with those in power is the only legitimate route to change. Unfortunately, dialogue only occurs when the people you are talking to are listening.

Completely agree with this. When you want the tyrant to stop oppressing you, you don't go up them and politely say "excuse me, we are unhappy at the way you are oppressing us, may we please stand out the front of the park and hold up some signs for a few hours" or "here is an argument written by a scholar about why what you are doing is not nice". Change only comes about because the the oppressed make the oppressors feel really uncomfortable to the point that things have to change - strikes, mass protests, pickets, boycotts, blockades, and the peaceful side, and then riots, insurgencies, terror campaigns on the violent side. I am certainly not advocating violence, however it did get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, The US out of Vietnam (and the Chinese!) and there is a Republic of Ireland because of it. I don't believe the ends of justify the means in the case of violence my point is just that someone who has power doesn't give it because they are politely asked. Doesn't matter if it communist China, or 'Democratic' Australia. The whole point for those demanding change is getting right in the face of the power holders and not leaving until change is made. I have always thought the whole idea of criticising a protest for its lack of legality to be ridiculous - If a protest is illegal does that make it wrong (eg.for free speech in an oppressive dictatorship)?

Power over one's life isn't given, it is taken. The very act of having to receive it is disempowerment.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


How did he get his way?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

How did he get his way?

I didn't. He probably hasn't read the thread and just wants to be mad at someone. I actually like a lot of what OWS was after, just not always the way it went about getting it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Nothing haphazard about it.

If you say so. Where are the results, then?

Band together, discuss issues, put forth list of complaints, Occupy.
Pretty straight forward.

Sounds like beatniks in a coffee shop in the 50's. Where are they now? Ah, that's right - they didn't have any focus, either. They were haphazard, too.

At least they had their poetry.

Well OWS did accomplish something: It provides reason to review public and immigration policy specifically with regard to redundant citizens. Once someone in the US is unemployed for more than two years, no longer counted on the employment statistics, cannot get a job for whatever reason, has their home foreclosed on, and has become homeless, then they either move in with someone else or family, or sleep in rubbish dumps or get deported. You see because you are not allowed to set up a tent on any public ground, the only option left is deportation. Send them to the Sudan like cattle or whatever. They're no longer any use to the US. There will soon be enough to 'occupy' the entire Sudanese desert. I reckon this policy would be a political winner with close to half of the American population.

reply to post by surrealist


Can't tell if being facetious...

Originally posted by surrealist
Well OWS did accomplish something: It provides reason to review public and immigration policy specifically with regard to redundant citizens. Once someone in the US is unemployed for more than two years, no longer counted on the employment statistics, cannot get a job for whatever reason, has their home foreclosed on, and has become homeless, then they either move in with someone else or family, or sleep in rubbish dumps or get deported. You see because you are not allowed to set up a tent on any public ground, the only option left is deportation. Send them to the Sudan like cattle or whatever. They're no longer any use to the US. There will soon be enough to 'occupy' the entire Sudanese desert. I reckon this policy would be a political winner with close to half of the American population.

Sadly, this is where we are heading as a failed empire. The United States is over, we just haven't realized it yet. Don't worry though, my fellow Americans! There IS life after the collapse of an empire. We are simply going to have to make a LOT of adjustments to our daily lives.

Originally posted by GardenerOfEden

The whole point for those demanding change is getting right in the face of the power holders and not leaving until change is made.

Maybe OWS should try that?

Lord know that what they've been doing - squatting in parks and venting a non-specific, omnidirectional, unfocused dissatisfaction while annoying everyone EXCEPT the Power Holders hasn't been working for them.

I'm guessing that was a large part in how they got marginalized in the first place. Annoy people long enough and they will either turn on you or ignore you. In this case they marginalized OWS.

Maybe it would help if they left Wall Street long enough to visit Fifth Avenue and hire a Corporate PR firm to work alongside the banks and lawyers they've hired while working "outside the system"?

The whole movement has become lethargic but not to worry as there will be an economic implosion very soon which is why we have FEMA camps because OWS will be nothing as to what comes from the reaction of the general public.

If anyone is interested here is the live feed to the thousands of people protesting at the port of Oakland right now.

www.ustream.tv...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Thanks for the link! Not as dead as I thought.

reply to post by Domo1


OWS is the elephant in the room the MSM and their controllers are terrified of and trying to ignore, hoping it goes away. Now they will live in fear for their future. The shoe is on the other foot now, HELLO!
MSM ignoring OWS only proves their hypocrisy and their total weaknesses that we are right and they cannot hide the truth any longer. It strengthens resolve. Time favors the movement. With the holidays and winter there will be a lull, to be expected.
Alas the masses are awakening from their long slumber.