Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question. There are lots of signs bemoaning rich people and corporate greed, but what is the actual message they are delivering?

As for the solution, I'm not advocating they write up a bill to be handed to the Congress, but it would be nice to have some idea how their goals (whatever they may be) could be achieved.

You ask why they need this? How about so people do take them seriously, politicians included.

WipEout wrote:

But writing the protesters off simply because they didn't start with a figurehead with a 10 point plan for change? Kind of asking a bit too much of any social/political movement.

Who's writing them off? I think you're taking what I've said so far and just assuming that, if that was indeed directed at me.

MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question. There are lots of signs bemoaning rich people and corporate greed, but what is the actual message they are delivering?

Are you being coy? You don't think everyone doesn't understand that Wall Street has done things that are wrong? From the financial instruments designed to fail to encouraging the government to backstop bad loans and bets. And then the bailouts followed by record bonuses. I think Main Street has a pretty good grasp on what Wall Street should be taken to task for.

The problem is that there are so many scandals and the problem is so far-reaching (from your local loan servicer to your bank to Wall Street to the halls of Congress) that it's hard to know where you'd start specifically. Occupying Wall Street and saying "Wall Street is the problem" is a fair place to start.

MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question.

That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'd comment further, but after seeing video of the protests and the NYPD "TARU" (we apparently have an equivalent of Korea's White Skull Brigade), I haven't even the emotional equilibrium to post non-questions like a disingenuous twat.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question.

That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'd comment further, but after seeing video of the protests and the NYPD "TARU" (we apparently have an equivalent of Korea's White Skull Brigade), I haven't even the emotional equilibrium to post non-questions like a disingenuous twat.

I asked a legit question. Others have mentioned the lack of cohesive message as well.

IMAGE(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/541/capturewnj.jpg)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The NYPD is essentially doing the dirty work for the banks. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Obviously there are good people on the NYPD force but how are we supposed to believe that the NYPD as a whole just wants to protect their city when they are funded by the very banksters being targeted by the Occupy Wall Street protests?
Oso wrote:

I have to say, I would feel better if more of the signs said things like:

Bring back Glass-Steagall

or

Separate Investment Banks from Commercial Banks!

or

Don't Speculate with my Life's Savings!

Great Ideas.

DSGamer wrote:

Are you being coy?

No, I'm not.

I understand Wall Street has done bad things. I've never argued that they haven't. Just because I'm asking for a clear message doesn't make me a supporter of the banks and Wall Street.

What I am asking for is a clearer message. I probably agree with a lot of what the protesters are there for, but just saying "corporations/rich are evil" won't get me to stand beside them.

MattDaddy wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question.

That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'd comment further, but after seeing video of the protests and the NYPD "TARU" (we apparently have an equivalent of Korea's White Skull Brigade), I haven't even the emotional equilibrium to post non-questions like a disingenuous twat.

I asked a legit question. Others have mentioned the lack of cohesive message as well.

This is either the beginning and cohesiveness will be sorted out or a mess and will fizzle away. In the end, cohesiveness and coherence is what we as a nation needs, either from this protest/occupation or from our leaders in Washington and Business.

PS - How would you make it more cohesive?

I also like this guy. I wonder if FoxNews ever aired that.

The Seattle's Stranger newpaper has a comedian at the protests reporting for them and it's an interesting read.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...

NormanTheIntern wrote:
goman wrote:

No he is dismissing them not for who they are but who he is.

Well, yes, as someone who found zombie walks vaguely annoying and pointless before occupy wall st, I find it twice as annoying in this context, and doesn't exactly scream "we're totally serious and not kids with a bunch of free time". I wasn't making a completely serious point (hence the smiley) but, yes - I'm outed as someone who thinks grownups playing dress-up outside of halloween is silly.

He says he works for Wall Street. I have never heard him say how we should fix the problems. Or even if he thinks there is a problem. He has just taken swipes at the Occupy Wall Street people.

"On" Wall Street, not "for". As in physically, my building is on that street.

And I've suggested a fix several times - set up shop in D.C. where the actual problem is. I do understand that blaming rich people is easier than taking your own party to task though - like when we ran things and blamed everything on "activist judges".

Zombie banks are even more annoying. But I guess being inconvenienced, (Are you even that?), is worse.

Blaming rich people gaming the system is what it really is about.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy.

First off, what exactly is the change they are demanding? Rich people not be so rich? And that is a serious question.

That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'd comment further, but after seeing video of the protests and the NYPD "TARU" (we apparently have an equivalent of Korea's White Skull Brigade), I haven't even the emotional equilibrium to post non-questions like a disingenuous twat.

Post in this thread again and you'll be getting a temp ban next. No personal attacks. This is way out of line.

MattDaddy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Are you being coy?

No, I'm not.

I understand Wall Street has done bad things. I've never argued that they haven't. Just because I'm asking for a clear message doesn't make me a supporter of the banks and Wall Street.

What I am asking for is a clearer message. I probably agree with a lot of what the protesters are there for, but just saying "corporations/rich are evil" won't get me to stand beside them.

Sometimes "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." is enough of a first step. It isn't a platform and it isn't a plan, so yes, we still need to come up with solid alternatives, but the path from inarticulate rage to practical social change passes through articulate rage, which is what I think we're seeing here.

MattDaddy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Are you being coy?

No, I'm not.

I understand Wall Street has done bad things. I've never argued that they haven't. Just because I'm asking for a clear message doesn't make me a supporter of the banks and Wall Street.

What I am asking for is a clearer message. I probably agree with a lot of what the protesters are there for, but just saying "corporations/rich are evil" won't get me to stand beside them.

I think the gentleman in Edwin's youtube clip answered your question better than I ever could.

And my comment on "writing them off" was directed at you, because in reading your comments I got the distinct impression that you aren't taking the protests seriously because they don't have a cohesive message. My comment wasn't meant to attack, so forgive me if you felt that way. Saying things like "do we start lynching people in suits" or "Maybe the 1% could give each of us 99% a pizza" (winky smiley or no) don't really read as if you take Occupy Wall Street seriously at all. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

goman wrote:

PS - How would you make it more cohesive?

I don't know. It may be it's too late for a cohesive message to come directly out of this protest. I'm seeing all kinds of signs now. You have anti-war, jobs are a right, corporate greed, even freedom messages mixed in together. Making this about everything that is wrong in the world is not going to get this anywhere.

The general theme seems to be that corporations are doing bad things, and that the few at the top are making out great while the rest of us (the 99%) are suffering (relative term) because of it. I actually like the 99% thing, because it's short and to the point. Now someone just needs to tie it into a complete, defined thought.

This is why I asked what are they demanding. Just saying that corporations are greedy doesn't work. Is it all corporations? How much is too greedy? Maybe it's just too early to be asking for a detailed framework like that, but after a few weeks this looks disorganized (which it is in part due to the lack of a defined leader). Just getting together to say things are bad doesn't help make things better. At the very least this should get the ball rolling and get people discussing what exactly needs to change.

WipEout wrote:

And my comment on "writing them off" was directed at you, because in reading your comments I got the distinct impression that you aren't taking the protests seriously because they don't have a cohesive message. My comment wasn't meant to attack, so forgive me if you felt that way. Saying things like "do we start lynching people in suits" or "Maybe the 1% could give each of us 99% a pizza" (winky smiley or no) don't really read as if you take Occupy Wall Street seriously at all. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

I'm not writing them off, but I can't say for sure I agree with them without knowing what it is they are standing for. For example, I can't take the "1% why you no pay taxes" guy seriously because that is just silly. I guess I agree in general principle, just as I pretty much agree in principle with the Tea Party. If the message turns into "everyone making more than $200,000 is evil and needs to give the rest of us more money", then I'm going to back away from them.

I think this is the most cohesive summary of how I feel about the protests.

Edwin wrote:

I also like this guy. I wonder if FoxNews ever aired that.

The Seattle's Stranger newpaper has a comedian at the protests reporting for them and it's an interesting read.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...

Economic justice = taking money from people who won't vote for you and give it to people who will vote for you. When asked about being critical of the democrats the guy dodged it because he's still going to vote for Obama. The Democrats had total control for 2 years. He ranted about fox news and conservative media for most of that two minutes. I didn't hear any policy alternatives or what he actually wants because he has none. Just like the tea party, it's all emotion and no actual policy choice. This isn't helping your (as someone on the left) movement. I don't see these kiddies any different than the wto kiddies from when I was in college.

What are they asking for? These protests are going to last until November 2012 and then they will stop. The democratic election groups are already moving in and setting up shop. The reason we see less scorn for these people than the tea parties is that a lot more of you agree with them than the tea party, which is fine ,but don't act like they are different. Someone showed a clip from Fox News and the tea party, I was watching MSNBC and they are already setting up shop just like Fox did. I have no time for populist movements that don't have any real solutions and I understand why they don't. We have a lot of different groups within these movements that believe a lot of different things. We have the socialists that want to eat the rich, the labour movements that have their wishes, etc etc but these protests are not serious.

They could get behind a liberal candiate and run him as a third party candidate against President Obama but they won't do that because a lot of these kiddies are going to vote for President Obama. Just like the tea party is going to vote for which ever Republican gets the nomination. I don't take them serious.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

When has the tea party done something to warrant arrests? So, if I am right from reading your post, you are fine with these leftist hipsters because you agree with them politically but you're not ok with the tea party because you don't agree with theirs?

Spare me your rage, Ulairi. You asked how they were different. I answered you. Was something I said unclear or nonfactual? Where exactly did I say one was okay and the other was not? If you're going to accuse me of things, at least have them be real things and not figments of your imagination.

I wasn't accusing you of anything and I think you need to calm down. I said this forum is treating these people different than the tea party.

Haha, come on Ulairi, it's quoted right there in your reply. You didn't say anything about the forum. If you're going to try and revise history, at least make a half-hearted attempt.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Haha, come on Ulairi, it's quoted right there in your reply. You didn't say anything about the forum. If you're going to try and revise history, at least make a half-hearted attempt.

I was asking you if I was reading you right. You just said: goals, tactics and support. What the hell does that even mean? To me, it means you agree with their goals, tactics and support and not the tea party.

Here are the list of the demands:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...

This Occupy Wall Street thing, if it manages to sustain itself, will become analogous to the Tea Party if/when it is co-opted by the Democratic Party (or I suppose the Republican Party, doesn't really matter which). That is the entire game in US politics right now, is it not? Manufacture division along arbitrary lines between two social classes whose interests are in fact rather similar, then use the proceeds from the resultant scuffle to give powerful people more things?

To me, 'make the rich people less rich' seems like a fairly coherent and actually somewhat reasonable objective. Because while I understand currency is not precisely a zero-sum game, power certainly is, and recent developments in terms of globalization and federal law have made money more closely equivalent to power than ever in the history of the country. This is by definition the point at which a republic becomes a plutocracy. Foregoing the usual complaints about 'redistribution of wealth' and such, it seems very reasonable to consider some means of redistributing power so we don't all end up in a) The dark ages again or b) Some horrible science fiction novel.

A video of these people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9...!

Ulairi wrote:

Here are the list of the demands:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...

That is quite the laundry list.

SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Here are the list of the demands:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...

That is quite the laundry list.

I'm not sure one post in a forum is *the* list of demands..

Tanglebones wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Here are the list of the demands:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...

That is quite the laundry list.

I'm not sure one post in a forum is *the* list of demands..

Here is an official release:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-...

Ulairi wrote:

What the hell does that even mean? To me, it means you agree with their goals, tactics and support and not the tea party.

Really? Really?

After all, what was the difference between Ghandi's Indian independence movement and the white government of the former colony of Rhodesia, except for goals and tactics? One had goals for liberating oppressed humans from physical and spiritual bonds, while the other had goals of enforcing a minority government on a nation of unwilling people. One used tactics of peaceful civil resistance while the other waged a bloody war against civilian populations. But in the end, you know, it all boils down to whether you agree with their goals, tactics, and support.

Those of us who are not nihilists believe that differences in goals and tactics are actually significant.

While not all situations are as clear cut as the example I cited, it does make the point plan. Goals and tactics matter. If the Tea Party, who's goals and tactics are quite similar to Occupy Wall Street, were to join in, I'm sure the cooperation would give movement to the undercurrent of dissatisfaction w/ the cronyism that connects Wall Street and the congress. As long as they left their latent racist tendencies at home and didn't push a vision of America that is purely white, rural, and Protestant, I'm sure they would be welcome.

It would be interesting to poll these hipsters to see how many approve the use of force to "enforce social justice" based on how they see social justice.

While not all situations are as clear cut as the example I cited, it does make the point plan. Goals and tactics matter. If the Tea Party, who's goals and tactics are quite similar to Occupy Wall Street, were to join in, I'm sure the cooperation would give movement to the undercurrent of dissatisfaction w/ the cronyism that connects Wall Street and the congress. As long as they left their latent racist tendencies at home and didn't push a vision of America that is purely white, rural, and Protestant, I'm sure they would be welcome

You're doing it right now. Look at the occupy wall street movement, it is very white, metropolitan and athiest. You're making my point for me. The only difference between how the tea party gets treated by a lot of people here and how these people get treated is that you happen to agree more with the occupy wall street crowd than the tea party. Which is fine. We had some idiot saying the rich pay no taxes which is on the level of stupid as the tea bagger with the sign that said "keep the goverment out of my medicare". My whole point is that these people do just as much damage to a liberal movement as the tea party does to the conservative movement.

I am not convinced that the best way to get people to cooperate with you is to ask them to leave their latent racist tendencies at home.