Occupy Wall Street

[Kendo 2]

@DeathWarrior, Well put. We have many among us who are strong believers in the Constitution and the rights provided thereunder. I number myself among them. I happen to agree with you with respect to my support of the ideals for this particular protest. However, whether I did or not, I would respect the rights of my fellow Americans to engage in this peaceful protest, as it is their right. I recognize that those who do not support the protesters also have a right to disagree; but I would hope that they can acknowledge respectfully that all Americans have a right to an opinion and its expression, and that they do not need to be belittled for having differing ones from their own.

 

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Look at the Tea Party rallies. The left attacked them. Look at the Wall Street rallies. They are being supported by the left. There was already one comment in this thread about 'tea bags' and the intent was clear.

 

Tea Party nonsense: grass roots, people voicing their opinions and some people on the left not liking it.

Wall Street rally nonsense: grass roots, people voicing their opinions and some people on the left supporting it.

 

I've already done research on both the Tea Party (that I do not support) and this Wall Street rally (that I do not support). They are both sideshows staged by organized groups and the people on the ground might be there with the purest intent, but they are dupes. It was true with the Tea Party stupidity and it's true with this Wall Street trainwreck. The only difference is one is left wing and one right wing. They are the SAME THING but with different messages.

 

Watch the reaction to this post as I am shouted down and generally nasty things are said about me. Attack the messenger, not the message. Shut them up and they will go away. And the same people who will be doing it are the same ones posting in this thread about how great it is that people can voice their opinions.

[greywaste]

Good point Kendo.

 

Somewhere (at the information spreading level I think) any kind of message intended is going to be lost. Responsible government spending goes hand in hand with "fair taxation" and access to financial support in hard times.

But this particular protest - as is usual with left based protests - has grown into the usual list (posted by HeyYou in a summary earlier) and is overshadowing the original intent. After all, what the heck has Wall street got to do with Troy Davis???

 

I'm sure plenty of people can remember when Obama was getting called on to take the Banks to task and his u-turn after they got their wallets out in support of him and they were suddenly "nice, very clever guys" well I'm sure his next step will be to paint this as "it's completely the republicans fault - they're the wall street party" and I'm sure most protestors will buy it hook, line and sinker. Divide and rule - and that's what ultimately makes protests pointless in the West.

 

I was reading an interesting article the other day in Vanity Fair about California's problems, part of it discussing Schwarzeneggars attempts to cut the deficit there. From what I could gather he was opposed at every single step, democrats opposed him, even his own party opposed him ( 4 republicans who agreed with him on part of his plan all lost their seats at the next election) after that, legislators opposed him and finally when it boiled down to it, the electorate opposed him.

 

America, like a lot of other nations right now, is simply spending beyond it's means and while it's a decent moral point that folks earning megabucks should not be coddled and bailed out with taxpayers money, it's not really the big picture.

There's just too much take and not enough give and it's right across the board - including the protestors themselves.

Edited October 7, 2011 by greywaste

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

I didn't use a false analogy. You failed to identify the particular part of my sentence which is a false analogy, and have failed to explain why. Must be fun to make conclusory statements in arguments, eh?

Uh.. Yes I did:

The voting public are not some expendable shepherd boy. The gov cannot just go out and find itself another constituency. These guys like their job security and they won't have it if they are just tuning them out because they've heard it before.

 

The value of any protest is in the expression of indignant rage itself, and in The Man getting it stuck to (or something like that)

Yea, like Hitler Youth rallies. Those protests contained no merit or value except for their the expression of indignant rage.

If expression itself has no value the FF wouldn't have bothered with the 1st amendment, would they?

[HeyYou]

The current reality is: Government for the government, by the government, and of the government. The people have no voice. The protest going on now, is incoherent, has no well-defined goals, (aside from the statement I summarized previously), and offers zero solutions/alternatives. They have a case of the "I want's", and that's it. Ok, you have expressed what you want, now, how do you propose to get it? Simply jumping up and down and hollering isn't going to accomplish anything. You can protest all you want, but, at the end of the day, you accomplish nothing.

 

Protesting just for the sake of protesting, without some 'cause' to forward, is pointless, and detracts from the value of protests that actually have a goal, and a plan. Walking around carrying I sign proclaiming "I am mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." Is a waste of effort, if folks don't know WHY you are mad, and WHAT you don't want to take any more.

[grannywils]

The current reality is: Government for the government, by the government, and of the government. The people have no voice. The protest going on now, is incoherent, has no well-defined goals, (aside from the statement I summarized previously), and offers zero solutions/alternatives. They have a case of the "I want's", and that's it. Ok, you have expressed what you want, now, how do you propose to get it? Simply jumping up and down and hollering isn't going to accomplish anything. You can protest all you want, but, at the end of the day, you accomplish nothing.

 

Protesting just for the sake of protesting, without some 'cause' to forward, is pointless, and detracts from the value of protests that actually have a goal, and a plan. *Walking around carrying I sign proclaiming not going to take it an"I am mad as hell, and I'm ymore." Is a waste of effort, if folks don't know WHY you are mad, and WHAT you don't want to take any more.

 

*Gee HY, where did I hear that somewhere earlier in this thread?? :whistling:

[HeyYou]

The current reality is: Government for the government, by the government, and of the government. The people have no voice. The protest going on now, is incoherent, has no well-defined goals, (aside from the statement I summarized previously), and offers zero solutions/alternatives. They have a case of the "I want's", and that's it. Ok, you have expressed what you want, now, how do you propose to get it? Simply jumping up and down and hollering isn't going to accomplish anything. You can protest all you want, but, at the end of the day, you accomplish nothing.

 

Protesting just for the sake of protesting, without some 'cause' to forward, is pointless, and detracts from the value of protests that actually have a goal, and a plan. *Walking around carrying I sign proclaiming not going to take it an"I am mad as hell, and I'm ymore." Is a waste of effort, if folks don't know WHY you are mad, and WHAT you don't want to take any more.

 

*Gee HY, where did I hear that somewhere earlier in this thread?? :whistling:

 

Not sure..... I do believe though, that it was some wise lady, sharing some of that wisdom with the rest of us. I merely thought that it bore repeating, since it WAS such a worthwhile statement. :D

[grannywils]

@Kendo said: "Watch the reaction to this post as I am shouted down and generally nasty things are said about me. Attack the messenger, not the message. Shut them up and they will go away. And the same people who will be doing it are the same ones posting in this thread about how great it is that people can voice their opinions."

 

Kendo2, once again although our politics are extraordinarly divergent, I must agree in the basic thrust of your argument that came along with the above post. It seems as though in so many cases the grass roots supporters of many groups may come to the game with the purest intents; but oftentimes do end up being duped by the "organization" that shows up right behind them. If you are shouted down as a result of this particular post it will be unfortunate, as what you have said is basic truth. It has no political philosophy behind it. You have voiced an opinion, and as I have said many times in the past, you have a right to it. Especially when I agree.:P

 

Where we would probably begin to disagree on this one would be when we discussed where that "organization" came from in each case. But let us not go there right now. Might as well enjoy the comraderie while we can :dance:

 

 

 

 

 

[draconix]

@Kendo: I pretty much agree with the points that you have to say here, but differ in opinion of them slightly.

 

I agree that the Tea Party is a pretty good comparison for what's happening on Wall Street, which is why I brought it up to begin with. The only difference is their place on the political spectrum, which I used tea-bags to symbolize in my witty remark. I am actually surprised that you didn't support the Tea Party though. I would have thought that was your thing, and that would make me wrong.

 

So the part where you and I differ in opinion only slightly is that rather than stating that I don't support either, I agree with the overlying messages of both, though I have't participated in either. Then again, depending on your definition of "support" one could say that I also don't support either, since I don't actively do anything to benefit one or the other.

[lukertin]

 

I didn't use a false analogy. You failed to identify the particular part of my sentence which is a false analogy, and have failed to explain why. Must be fun to make conclusory statements in arguments, eh?

Uh.. Yes I did:

The voting public are not some expendable shepherd boy. The gov cannot just go out and find itself another constituency. These guys like their job security and they won't have it if they are just tuning them out because they've heard it before.

I didn't analogize you to a shepherd boy. Thus, false attempt to call what I did a false analogy. You completely misunderstand the purpose I brought in the story about the Boy who Cried Wolf. Your response to my point shows you don't even understand the lesson behind the fable about the Boy who Cried Wolf. (hint: it actually doesn't have much to do with 'don't lie')

 

If expression itself has no value the FF wouldn't have bothered with the 1st amendment, would they?

What are you talking about?

 

Please address my questions as I posted them in the last thread:

You seem to be saying that random, arbitrary, purposeless protests are necessary to ensure that elected government officials 'stay' honest or some nebulous concept which doesn't make any sense. If this is what you mean, you don't justify why this 'blanket protesting' is preferable to, or more effective that, or is necessary to supplement holding elections every 2-6 years to assess those elected officials' competence for the job.

 

If you are actually referring to everyday government employees, then LOL. Those people don't have a voice in government superior to yours, they're working stiffs just like everyone else. Not to mention, you outnumber them heavily in the political process. Get a grip on reality.

 

Finally, if you are referring to those appointed officials who essentially serve for life, need I remind you that these people do not apply for those jobs, the President seeks them out. A lot of them leave higher paying, more prestigious jobs in their respective careers to take that appointed position. Their job security is not high on their list of concerns; effecting public service is.

Edited October 7, 2011 by lukertin

[Ghogiel]

I agree that the Tea Party is a pretty good comparison for what's happening on Wall Street, which is why I brought it up to begin with.

Ron Paul has voiced his support for the occupy wall street protest early on.