It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AzureSky
Ignorance and fear. Its always about ignorance and fear, thats what the basis of most of the world is now.
So true, my friend so true. So if this the first step we have taken to stand against ignorance and fear, how is that a bad thing? Even if it isn't well organized or some of the people haven't showered in a month. Why do those little details matter when the core foundation of the movement is that we the people are fed up with being exploited?
***Apparently I messed up quoting you lol, my bad.edit on 2-5-2012 by seberhar because: I messed up the quote
Originally posted by stanguilles7
I think 'occupy', as a larger 'movement' is likely a controlled pressure-valve of sorts.It helps ensure the various activist communities have an outlet for their frustration, without doing anything that causes real, fundamental change. It is made up of sincere individuals, I don;t doubt that. But it is most likely being controlled and manipulated by several, often competing 'sides' which seek to harness the energy for their own means.
Originally posted by seagull
It's a worthy cause, no doubt as to that...
They are, IMHO, a tad misguided, but their hearts are in the right place. To retrieve the power that we've lost, OWS and the rest of us, need to be involved politically, not rioting. Rioting plays right into the hands of those who control the abilities to clear the streets.
Originally posted by seberhar
I have considered that as well. But wouldn't their goal be to keep people blind rather than wake people up? Because the movement has woken many people up.
Originally posted by seagull
You can not allow that small number of anarchists/agent provocateur/idiots to color your movement. If you do, you're going to lose. It's that simple.
We do not propose to say that there shall be no rich men. We do not ask to divide the wealth. We only propose that, when one man gets more than he and his children and children's children can spend or use in their lifetimes, that then we shall say that such person has his share. That means that a few million dollars is the limit to what any one man can own."
We shall have to say right here and now that the hand of imperial finance shall not go farther into its strangulation of the American people and that the hand of imperialistic banking control shall be decentralized instead of centralized in America."
They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."