OWS's Failure - A New Reason From the Gallup Poll

I think people go after the government because they are lazy and it's an easier job. After all, what kinds legal of tools other than boycott do we really have at our disposal to fight big business? Since so much of our day to day lives is intertwined with the over-consumer culture we have going on here, it's really not that easy even to make use of that one tool. It's not like most of us can get to the point where we can say "That's enough! I'm not buying gasoline anymore."

Wheras we can b**** and moan about the government all day long without feeling like a hypocrite. After all, if we receive services from the government we can just tell ourselves it's been from the guys we elected there, and its all the other little bits of the government that we're actually against.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

I must have said something that was confusing or incorrect, forgive me. I am not opposed to capitalism. There hasn't been a greater wealth producing system. And it doesn't matter, if we're going forward, how OWS got the anti-capitalist label. They've got it and it will take some doing getting rid of, if they even want to.

I'm just hoping to find a way that will allow us to shed that, and other, negative labels so that the majority of Americans can feel comfortable supporting us, whoever that "us" turns out to be.

With respect,
Charles1952

Charles, I appreciate your points and response. My posts are mostly in relation to people who suggest that anyone who opposes the agendas of OWS are necessarily putting forth "bile" to use another posters teminology.
I have never said I was for BoA, or Goldman Sachs. And yet people here are criticizing me as such. There is a big difference between holding the bankers feet to the fire and calling for the end of capitalism. Do the OWS supporters see that difference?
Perhaps there really is just a learning curve, or maybe the demand for direct democracy does come from Soros etc.
What do you think?

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by charles1952

 

that's why the Tea Party became a popular movement and OWS hasn't

Umm you lost me there, OWS was and is still bigger then the Tea Party. Actually the Tea Prty fizzled out.

Where are the 99%ers? Right here

It is kind of hard to protest

WHEN YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTEST IN PUBLIC NOW

Our civil liberties are being encroached upon, we are being violently suppressed by the elites dogs (cops)

Another factor is the weather, consider us taking a break until spring and then we will re-surge.(people are still protesting this winter ) OWS is just the beginning of things to come, we will not forget the violent suppression and will address the police state. But if you ask me we need to move on to the federal resrve. As well as address government corruption.

The OP is making a straw man argument, to the Anti-OWS shills WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY! And you can tell your boss at BoA to put it in his pipe and smoke it and to EXPECT US!

refer to my signature

edit on 14-12-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

Look at the Tea Party protests and OWS side by side. Who got evicted from parks? Not the Tea Party. Tea Party got permits etc and didn't overstay their welcome. It is not that people are not allowed to protest, it is that OWS trashed the parks and got a bad reputation with all the rapes and dirty needles and drugs and lice and what not. Not to mention they seemed to be more occupied with baiting the police than in making the actual statement of protest. It is as if protesting the police became their statement. Wanting to be planted in the parks overtook their actual message if you ask me. All this business with the "participatory democracy" just ended up to be a game of sorts. The change they want is to change our Republican form of govt. and I cannot be on board with that. They are asking for socialism on top of that.
They have legitimate concerns about the abuse of the capitalist mechanism, but they seem to be concerned with overthrowing capitalism and not just containing the abuse. One can only discern this by understanding the agenda behind the movement.
When the demands they are making are socialist points(for instance one of the demands is for single payer health care) one can easily surmise the agenda behind the movement.

My posts are mostly in relation to people who suggest that anyone who opposes the agendas of OWS are necessarily putting forth "bile" to use another posters teminology

See your problem is selective reading. As stated in my original quote, there is a difference between being against something or not agreeing with a philosophy (something which you believe you are doing) and throwing out talking points based on strictly one perspective (extreme right wing) that have no real basis in truth (which you are actually doing), hence the spitting out bile reference. If you had taken the time to read my post rather than simply looking for more talking points to reiterate, then you would have seen that I did not call you a BOFA representative, but rather a partisan hack.

Furthermore your reaction in the fact that you cannot distinguish one person's opinion from another (merging my opinion with someone else’s) points to the EXACT reason why you cannot see the diversity of the OWS, by lumping together of all those involved in the OWS because it fits your ideology to do so. Also you never answered any of the questions or scenarios that I wanted you to address, which to me, verifies your biases which you yourself are too blind to see.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I have to agree with you. Any time you try and point out the obvious flaws with OWS, the supporters go into offensive overdrive like you just insulted their grandmother. This is yet another reason why the masses don't support OWS. It's the whole if you are against us, you are for them mentality. Not everyone is for what OWS is for like people think they are. There are actually some of us who think independently. Until both OWS and TP members can sit down and have civilized discussions, omit those whose agendas are in direct conflict with our Constitution, then there will be no compromise.

Case in point, I have been called a neocon, a fascist, a BoA supporter,etc simply because I cannot identify with the OWS movement and it's supporters. I am anything but. I am an American. I am a free thinking individual who bases his opinions on those matters that align the closest with our founding documents. I have opinions that make people label me a liberal. I have opinions that have people labeling me a right winger. Why can't I be in the middle? Because in this political correctness age I have to be pinned to one side or the other.

In order for our country to move forward, and on the right track, then open and honest discussion without name calling and labeling has got to occur. We have an opportunity in 2012 to at least take a shot at doing something right. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is better than what we have,and what we have had for the last 30 years. It's time Americans put their pettiness on the back burner and work together to save our country. If we fail to at least turn the ship in the right direction next year, it may very well be the last breath of freedom the west ever breaths.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

My posts are mostly in relation to people who suggest that anyone who opposes the agendas of OWS are necessarily putting forth "bile" to use another posters teminology

See your problem is selective reading. As stated in my original quote, there is a difference between being against something or not agreeing with a philosophy (something which you believe you are doing) and throwing out talking points based on strictly one perspective (extreme right wing) that have no real basis in truth (which you are actually doing), hence the spitting out bile reference. If you had taken the time to read my post rather than simply looking for more talking points to reiterate, then you would have seen that I did not call you a BOFA representative, but rather a partisan hack.

Furthermore your reaction in the fact that you cannot distinguish one person's opinion from another (merging my opinion with someone else’s) points to the EXACT reason why you cannot see the diversity of the OWS, by lumping together of all those involved in the OWS because it fits your ideology to do so. Also you never answered any of the questions or scenarios that I wanted you to address, which to me, verifies your biases which you yourself are too blind to see.

edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

My problem is not selective reading. It was Mr xyz who made the charge of anti-OWS being BoA reps, and your statement of speaking bile was what I was addressing to you. Does the word "Bile" have partisan meaning to you? Bile must equal Republican to you for it to have partisan meaning.


I can see what diversity is in OWS. I can see that there are a few Ron Paul Libertarian types there. I appreciate that. Were it not for the Ron Paul people, I would say that there is almost nothing at all I could support. Some of the most staunch OWS supporters here are for nationalizing the Fed not for abolishing it. The fact that nationalizing the Fed has overtaken the abolition of the Fed says something about the movement in general.

Here is a point taken from a blogger

I got a kick out of these items from the OWS set of demands:
Transitioning the IMF and World Bank into transparent, publically owned and operated entities
Ending the Federal Reserve Bank and replacing it with an accountable, decentralized, transparent and publically owned financial system
These institutions were created by democratic governments, populated primarily by those on the left (my friends who went this route were all conventional Liberals). That they are considered insufficiently transparent and unaccountable highlights that reality never creates the social vision they seek, which is some sort of transparent consensus on matters of incredible technicality. You see the same thing with Noam Chomsky, were socialism always is to be encouraged, but any time it happens, as in the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, or Cambodia, these aren't considered 'true' socialist countries (if only Trotsky won!). Their naive beliefs do not work because they aren't feasible, and so too the idea that large banks can be some big cookie jar for agreed-upon investments as opposed to being administered by professionals.

falkenblog.blogspot.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Let just agree to disagree. Have a good day.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


Here is something from the other side, just to show that I am not making up the push for nationalizing the Fed

Ron Paul and the Conservative Libertarians want to close the Federal Reserve Bank. Progressive Libertarians want to Nationalize the Fed and give the People access to their Commonwealth through direct low interest loans

aaronburrsociety.org...

At best there are different factions involved in this. Ron Paul people are on the ground pushing to end the fed and the socialist types are on the ground pushing for nationalizing the Fed. I have heard both arguments in relation to OWS.
People right here on ATS are pushing for nationalizing the Fed. It's not like I just made that up.

Well I disagree strongly with nationalizing the Fed. Have you seen the documentary Money Masters? It's an oldie but a goodie and a must watch for info on the history of central banks and why the founding fathers strongly opposed it. I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for Ron Paul in 2007 (preliminaries). Looks like I'll vote for him again this election. But in all honesty, I am not sure how much faith I have in the power of the vote any more. All I can say is thank God for the 2nd amendment, because in times like this I seriously believe we will need it.

Here's an example of the flaw in using national surveys/polls, we have the OP's poll which is based on the answers of approximately 1,500 people (that's about 1 in 150,000 adults out of about 226 million adults in the US). Here's another poll put out by Pew which uses the exact same methodology as Gallup, that shows people are worried about income inequality, and just for fun here's the latest on OWS.

I just don't see how asking 1,500 random people about anything can accurately represent national opinion, even when I like what the poll/survey says.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus, and anybody else sticking with this thread


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

Thanks for your kind and reasonable response. I think you're pointing out a big problem. One so big that, if we can't solve it, will seriously or damage or usher in the death of our country as we have known it. That problem is the almost automatic, violent, rejection of what the "other" group has to say. After the first few words have come out of the "opponent's" mouth we have made up our minds and can't hear another word. we become extremely defensive.

Hey, that gives me an idea. Defensive. Football teams have an offense and a defense. (I know, they also have special teams, but they just confuse the issue.) We're like an offense and defense that believe they are the only right and important part of the team, and the other group is wrong. They've lost sight of the fact that it's the touchdown that's important and each has a part to play.

Here's an example. The OWS group says the interaction between business and government leads to a corrupted government. The Tea Party says the interaction leads to excessive government controls and economic failure.

Can we not see that both sides would like to see the end of entanglement of business and government? Isn't that one of several possible places we could start?

Come on, guys. Put aside the anger at each other, then listen to each other and work on common problems. That way we have a chance of changing things with out going all goofy with destruction of the country plans.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

It appears they are only concerned with Police, which are authorities, not govt. I haven't heard one whisper against govt officials, except perhaps against Scott Walker but only because Big Labor was out in force with OWS. I doubt Walker has much pull with Goldman Sachs.

...the police ARE PART OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.

And I HAVE heard plenty talk about the corruption/tyranny of government. Just because they're not market-obsessed and want reduced taxes/regulations on the wealthy/corporations, doesn't mean that they aren't against big government. And IN FACT, OWS is far more educated/logical in their stances against actually tyrannical forms of big government. They realize that big business and the state work together to oppress us, whether intentionally or not. Walker has PLENTY of pull with major corporate propaganda machines, or at least he serves as a puppet for them, just as Glenn Beck is/was.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Dear NoHierarchy,

I haven't suceeded with this thread as I would have liked. You see, it's become a place to defend or attack OWS, and that wasn't what I had in mind at all.

I was hoping that the spirit and advantages of OWS could be combined with those of the Tea Party to tackle the greatest fear Americans have right now, Big Government. As you point out:

And I HAVE heard plenty talk about the corruption/tyranny of government. . . . And IN FACT, OWS is far more educated/logical in their stances against actually tyrannical forms of big government. They realize that big business and the state work together to oppress us, whether intentionally or not.

My hope was that this was the issue that would unite the country, and it could be done before the elections were held.

I'm afraid that, based on the reaction I'm getting, we won't be able to find unity and we will keep pulling against each other. Maybe you can find a way to fix that.

With respect,
Charles1952