Occupy Wall Street

[Aurielius]

What amuses me is the arrogance of some in the OWS faction supporters that seem to think they have EXCLUSIVE rights to what is correct, righteous, moral and of course politically correct. That the concept of the judgment of history could be passed on something that is neo natal is naive drollery. Even in cities such as mine (Philadelphia) where there has been less civil disobedience than other cities their encampments have been shut down and they are being forced to apply for permits to occupy public spaces (like the rest of the 99% has to do). Coming from the birthplace of free speech in America (and a tradition of Quaker tolerance) I have no problem with it's exercise BUT under the same provisions that I must adhere to.

[marharth]

What amuses me is the arrogance of some in the OWS faction supporters that seem to think they have EXCLUSIVE rights to what is correct, righteous, moral and of course politically correct.

That happens in protests quite a lot.

 

@Kendo

A single person saying a few people were throwing rocks is not equal to a video of a large group of them throwing rocks. If it commonly happens there has to be a video of the majority doing it. Find one.

 

You are also claiming they are throwing fire bombs by the way. Do you have any proof of that?

 

Some people end up getting arrested in protests. That is not the majority. If it was the majority the protests would have been stopped by now due to lack of participants.

 

@Granny

So large groups can't protest in public spaces?

 

"Occupations are quite another since they actually interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy public spaces."

 

Occupy is just a fancy word for protesting in a single place for long amounts of time. That happened in the civil rights movement and other large protests as well.

 

The issue is voting won't work because of how corrupt it is. One of the main goals of the protests is to fix that.

Edited November 19, 2011 by marharth

[Nintii]

What interested me is that while watching ... France 24news channel (the only news channel available at my holiday flat) ... the newsreader stated that the demands of OW were to broad and had nothing specific ... to me that translated into the following;

 

They had no leader, no manifesto, never had one voice, made too many demands, in short they were directionless ... they were a flash in the pan, a one hit wonder with no substance, a fad, just like fast food - easy in and easy out.

 

Typical mobocracy ... I hate it with a passion.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nintii

[marharth]

Large protests don't instantly have leaders. No idea where everyone is getting that from.

 

They have demands. I have mentioned them five times in the post.

 

Get money out of politics. Make it so the upper class does not have a huge percentage of wealth and power. That is the main goal, now move on please.

 

Not really sure why I am so surprised the right wing hates the protests, I should of expected it. I guess I thought at least some people here would be against corruption. Not to mention the right wing claims to support freedom and they are cheering for police who pepper spray down crowds that are not even moving.

 

Not to mention that police purposely destroyed items of the protests and kept media out during the "cleanup." If anyone is damaging property it is the police.

 

If you think its just a fad you are simply incorrect. It has lasted a while and is only growing. It is nearly worldwide at this point.

Edited November 21, 2011 by marharth

[Nintii]

Well Marharth how long have they been at it ... and still not even an inkling of a leader, no proper list of demands, nothing, nada, niks ... it was more like a fashion parade, just to be seen ... "Hey did you see me on TV" ? ... whatever "good" they might have done was lost because of their failure at cohesion on the important levels.

Eventually they just became a nuisance, a big gang hanging around and waiting for what ? ... all they did was to disrupt business ... the cops with tear gas or pepperspray was the governments way of saying "p*** off and grow up".

That would not have happened IF they had it together as a meaningful voice.

 

You'll never get money out of politics ... Never !

If you work hard and are wise and make money why in heavens name must you get punished for it ? ... if the guy down the road makes wrong decisions or cannot handle money then that's his problem, why must I have to wipe his little tushie

and prop him up ?

 

I suppose that I am right wing ... I'm right and I have the wings to prove it ... I'm free to soar in the world I have made through hard work and now I'm going to enjoy it and ol Joe Blogs down the road can cluck cluck like a chicken while I fly with the eagles.

[Kendo 2]

:facepalm: Hopeless. I would LOVE to hear what Marharth would think of the Tea Party doing what OWS does.

 

OWS DOES NOT have the 'right' to occupy municipal land. There are pre-existing laws about CAMPING in urban areas. In Texas we have a name for people who camp in city parks and deficate and urinate in public. They're called bums.

 

'Make it so the upper class does not have a huge percentage of wealth and power.'

 

That's just funny. I'm sure Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, and Soros are all down for that. Since they are all millionaires and I'm sure they are very willing to give up what they have to keep OWS people happy. IN actuality they probably would be, since they would be the elite of the new order and the OWS rubes would be eating sawdust bread and wearing Mao suits.

 

Anyway. OWS is a sham. Always has been, always will be. I don't hate the notion of breaking the bonds between big business and big government. It's a good idea. But camping, banging on drums, barking at the moon and taking a poo on the sidewalk IS NOT the way to get things done. Neither is making such a nuisance of themselves that the DEMOCRATIC mayor of NY says 'enough'. Even the liberal media pundits are now questioning what the OWS 'point' is. OWS had their chance, but when Americans see people clashing with the police, the POLICE ARE NOT THE VILLIANS. It is what it is.

 

AND on ABC News last night I saw a few OWS people roaming around behind the reporter. They were wearing black arm bands and they WERE NOT going to a funeral. I'm sure a few people reading this know what those arm bands mean.

[marharth]

If pepper spraying people sitting down doing nothing at all does not make you a villain, what does?

 

I don't give a rats ass what Obama would do. Obama is another sellout politician.

 

Still no videos of them doing any of that?

 

A few people does not mean the majority is like that. They are a few people.

[ginnyfizz]

What amuses me is the arrogance of some in the OWS faction supporters that seem to think they have EXCLUSIVE rights to what is correct, righteous, moral and of course politically correct.

That happens in protests quite a lot.

 

@Kendo

A single person saying a few people were throwing rocks is not equal to a video of a large group of them throwing rocks. If it commonly happens there has to be a video of the majority doing it. Find one.

 

You are also claiming they are throwing fire bombs by the way. Do you have any proof of that?

 

Some people end up getting arrested in protests. That is not the majority. If it was the majority the protests would have been stopped by now due to lack of participants.

 

@Granny

So large groups can't protest in public spaces?

 

"Occupations are quite another since they actually interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy public spaces."

 

Occupy is just a fancy word for protesting in a single place for long amounts of time. That happened in the civil rights movement and other large protests as well.

 

The issue is voting won't work because of how corrupt it is. One of the main goals of the protests is to fix that.

 

*Echoes Kendo's facepalm* Marharth, if you are going to be rude and insulting, which you usually are, at least get your facts right. First of all it was me that said that "Occupations are quite another..." remark, my name is Ginny and I am no-one's ruddy Grandmama. You have quoted my post outrageously selectively and it really has rebounded, because I stated in the post and have previously gone on record, on these forums, that I support peaceful protest and have done some of it myself, and have earned myself a rendering senseless by the Metropolitan Police stormtroopers for my pains. There is a HUGE difference between an demo and an occupation where the participants set up camp and generally interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy the same public spaces.

 

As nintii suggests, they are just in it for the fifteen minutes of fame and love windbagging on the TV. Bless. While I am working my butt off trying to get another job. I'm really glad (that's more Brit sarcasm coming up Marharth) that they either have Mummies and Daddies rich and daft enough to subsidise their loafing, employers that are lenient enough to let them off work/lecturers that are lefty enough themselves to let them off class/welfare departments that are gormless enough not to be doing their own bit of loitering around the camps looking for claimants.

 

Since I got whacked for actually moving on when an officer asked me to during a protest against the hunting ban, I sure as hell don't feel any sympathy for those guys when they are going out of their way to be obnoxious.

[hoofhearted4]

pretty sure a judge rules OWS to be broken up like last week.

 

they ppl there are pathetic...get a job. you know no one there has a job, because any working person wouldnt have the time to protest, whether they believed in the cause or not.

 

besides, from what ive seen, what they were doing was against the law anyways, 1st Amendment says; "Peacefully Assemble" there were plenty of accounts of non peaceful acts going on, which basically turns it into a mob and not a protest. it doesnt matter if its only a few ppl doing it and not the majority. those few ppl ruin it for the majority.

 

either way, i still disagree with them, and think they all need to get lives

 

(did not follow this thread, read the OP and the last couple of posts and that was it)

[marharth]

What amuses me is the arrogance of some in the OWS faction supporters that seem to think they have EXCLUSIVE rights to what is correct, righteous, moral and of course politically correct.

That happens in protests quite a lot.

 

@Kendo

A single person saying a few people were throwing rocks is not equal to a video of a large group of them throwing rocks. If it commonly happens there has to be a video of the majority doing it. Find one.

 

You are also claiming they are throwing fire bombs by the way. Do you have any proof of that?

 

Some people end up getting arrested in protests. That is not the majority. If it was the majority the protests would have been stopped by now due to lack of participants.

 

@Granny

So large groups can't protest in public spaces?

 

"Occupations are quite another since they actually interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy public spaces."

 

Occupy is just a fancy word for protesting in a single place for long amounts of time. That happened in the civil rights movement and other large protests as well.

 

The issue is voting won't work because of how corrupt it is. One of the main goals of the protests is to fix that.

 

*Echoes Kendo's facepalm* Marharth, if you are going to be rude and insulting, which you usually are, at least get your facts right. First of all it was me that said that "Occupations are quite another..." remark, my name is Ginny and I am no-one's ruddy Grandmama. You have quoted my post outrageously selectively and it really has rebounded, because I stated in the post and have previously gone on record, on these forums, that I support peaceful protest and have done some of it myself, and have earned myself a rendering senseless by the Metropolitan Police stormtroopers for my pains. There is a HUGE difference between an demo and an occupation where the participants set up camp and generally interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy the same public spaces.

 

As nintii suggests, they are just in it for the fifteen minutes of fame and love windbagging on the TV. Bless. While I am working my butt off trying to get another job. I'm really glad (that's more Brit sarcasm coming up Marharth) that they either have Mummies and Daddies rich and daft enough to subsidise their loafing, employers that are lenient enough to let them off work/lecturers that are lefty enough themselves to let them off class/welfare departments that are gormless enough not to be doing their own bit of loitering around the camps looking for claimants.

 

Since I got whacked for actually moving on when an officer asked me to during a protest against the hunting ban, I sure as hell don't feel any sympathy for those guys when they are going out of their way to be obnoxious.

That wasn't meant as a insult, it was a mistake. I mixed up your name with grannywils p.p

I do apologize for that. Most of the time when I am offensive someone has to be offensive to me first. I didn't quote you like that as a insult, I was tired and ended up mixing up your names somehow.

 

So why is protesting in a a large group for a long time any different then setting up camp? Protesting a public area for a long time without camping will still " interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy the same public spaces."

 

Why do the protesters simply want to get fame? That doesn't make much sense to me considering personal fame is kind of hard to obtain when there are thousands of people present.

 

Pretty sure you do not require much money to live in a tent and hold signs.

 

When people are sitting down doing nothing and a cop sprays them down, it is wrong. I would be just as pissed if it were the tea party being sprayed down.

 

Also if anyone could just "get a job" they would. Saying that is ridiculous. That was more of a reply to the above post.

Edited November 21, 2011 by marharth