Occupy Wall Street

Crystal, but I was there and I have the same right as they do to complain.

I stated in an early post that I had gone to a GA meeting and in Cleveland the numbers are not that great so it is pretty easy to identify people.

Any other questions?

 

Only if you're looking at OWS with your socialist, spoiled, entitled youngsters Fox glasses on. I guess the middle agers, baby boomers, and elderly are just there hoping to get some sex, hey?

 

Never said there aren't older folks in ows, but the exception isn't the rule.
--- merged: Nov 20, 2011 6:02 AM ---
What percentage of the ows protesters are unemployed? Anybody have that stat?

 

You were there once for a few hours, but go ahead, complain all you want, trash OWS until you're blue in the face. It's 10 after 1 in the am and I'm thinking here - does it really matter what one guy on an internet site thinks? Nope, not really.

Taking your word for it.
--- merged: Nov 20, 2011 6:19 AM ---

Probably all of them. See, that there might be the problem. They need to get out there and find minimum wage jobs just like the rest of the working poor. That's what we need, by golly, more working poor to show the world how well our system works - not a bunch of lazy deadbeats complaining about how there ain't no jobs.

 

I don't have a source, but I'd bet that more members of the tea party movement are unemployed and suckling at the government's teat than are OWS participants.

 

What percentage of the ows protesters are unemployed? Anybody have that stat?

Read more:​

Percentage of unemployed has no bearing on the validity of OWS. That's just another red erring thrown out by opponents to belittle and dismiss the movement.​

http://www.thetfp.com/threads/occupy-wall-street.1634/page-59#ixzz1eEiMhS9p​

 

Perhaps, if you actually do disagree with crony capitalism, you should get off your ass and do something about it. From what I have seen, the occupy movement is not a top down organization. There is room for many voices (perhaps too many). If you feel change is needed, add your voice. Make the change. Otherwise you are just contributing to the problem, no?

 

I do...I vote. Aside from that, I'm busy running a ranch and crew of workers.

No. The ones contributing to the problem are those who want to stomp their feet and scream rather than take REAL action. The ones who block busy streets when people are trying to get home from work to see their children. The ones who's actions have forced small businesses to shut down and who are costing us millions of dollars every day in security personnel to keep them from breaking law and causing chaos. The ones who would rather party in downtown with their loser friends than go get a job and earn their own way, which they won't do because they've been told if they go $100k in debt for a college degree then they're entitled to a six figure salary when they graduate. OWS.

 

Yep.

Another myth put to rest.....much like the socialist agenda myth, the killing of thousands of small businesses myth, the excessive violence myth....

 

I do my part, I vote.

Hahahahahahaha.

That's a good one. How much of an effect have those votes for Ron Paul had?

 

I think it's taken time for the country to realize that drastic changes are needed. So you see a lot more attention given to the Paul campaign this go-round. In the end I think voters are going to stick with the status quo; Obama. We'll have four more years of the same stuff. And guess who's going to be voting for the status quo? Yep, occupiers.

 

i cannot imagine a more upside-down view of the world than one which would confuse ron paul with an alternative to the status quo. the core of paul's socio-economic ideology is markety market nonsense, the same old same old failed rightwing stuff that got us into this mess in the first place, garnished with a dollop of trotskyist thinking (no no, this hasn't been falsified by reality---it hasn't really been tried yet---just you wait until the second revolution comes blah blah blah) and served with a healthy dose of straight-up lunacy (30s isolationism, racism, xenophobia, storming the fed like it's the bastille, whackjob constitutional fundamentalism except when its inconvenient)...even as i think him a smart guy---just goes to show you that political ideology is a matter of cognitive framework and that very smart people can run the machinery of a fucked up framework and generate fucked up outcomes because the frame doesn't allow them to do otherwise. that's the problem with right libertarian thinking. the discourse of "i'm a free-thinking radical" that accompanies it is way john galt, a rhetorical tic inherited from the queen of purple prose wrapped bon bons made of adolescent pseudo-philosophy.

so you have people like eddie voting paul and imagining that a statement against something. but i would be surprised if, in other elections, the vote goes a straight republican ticket. because they Believe the Gospel of Hayek. you rebel, you.

 

Paul's idea might have worked well a couple centuries ago. Who knows? He may have made a great POTUS in 1812. 2012? Not so much.

 

Not trying to be a rebel. I just want someone who is interested in preserving the Constitution of the United States.

 

discussions with paulbots were a big deal in the philadelphia occupation. what they performed, in the end, was an incommensurability of framework problem. there were a range of left positions involved---my friends who are doing the ga are in a general sense social-democrats (an orientation to capitalism that the right cannot recognize so tangled are they in phantasms made from red-baiting). there is space for agreement on some of the basic problems that confront the fading empire, but as soon as they move to explainations (because orientations are linked to explanations and policy ideas follow from them) the paulbots flew along their wobbly rails to the fed and fiat currency and the 13th amendment. even on questions of the right's addiction to the heroin provided by the manly military-industrial complex (the center, along with instruments of surveillance and repression, of the conservative welfare state) there was agreement on the problems but total divergence on explanation and alternatives---the paulbots advocating a totally unhinged isolationism from the 30s far right. so discussions about the empirical world broke down over and over---and there was considerable chaos in communication, with paulbots setting up outlets that claimed to speak for the occupation and inserting their lunatic framework into things as if there was agreement when there wasn't and coherence where there certainly wasn't.

what's funny is that every last paulbot claims they are defending the constitution. when others determine--rightly, to my mind---that the paulbot worldview is lunacy, the claim follows from the bots that others oppose the constitution. like they monopolize the constitution because of the nature of their particular fetishism. from there follows such logic there is to paulbot redbaiting. like everything else about their viewpoint, it's unhinged from reality and logically circular. eddie is, in this respect, a specimen and he performs in this thread a role similar to that performed by other paulbots in the ows context.

 

Well of course. As some other members have recently pointed out in this thread, any worldview that isn't yours is lunacy.

 

Eddie...why do you think it is that Paul is stuck at about 10% of Republican voters supporting him (a number that would be even far less if you add in Dems and Indys) and the OWS is the 30% support range and higher than the Tea Party?

 

I don't know about your numbers regarding Repubs, but I would guess that a lot occupiers support Paul because he wants to audit the Fed and clear out the scum that is currently inhabiting the house and senate.

 

I was wrong about 10% support for Paul among Republican voters. It is lower, between two other lunatics - Perry and Bachmann:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I hardly think OWS supporters share Paul's belief in eliminating federal regulations of Wall Street and financial services or making the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent permanent.