Meh, they would just run for some other office.

Posted by kermit on 10/18/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Meh, they would just run for some other office.

So what WOULD help?

If you crap on an idea, at least have one of your own.

Posted by philogenemay on 10/18/2011 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kermit on 10/18/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Meh, they would just run for some other office.

So what WOULD help?

If you crap on an idea, at least have one of your own.

The same can be said of the Occupiers.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/18/2011 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 10/18/2011 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kermit on 10/18/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Meh, they would just run for some other office.

So what WOULD help?

If you crap on an idea, at least have one of your own.

The same can be said of the Occupiers.

Obviously they have a grand plan, but as jonas so kindly informed us, it is the bigwig media moguls just making it SEEM like they don't have a plan.

Wow.

Posted by raucous on 10/17/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Communist China and Obama are behind the occupiers.  It seems like they all want the corruption that comes with communism.

It goes along with the "class warfare" that Obama has been seeking by keeping the poor down and just have the elite get the goods.  (see Obamacare single payer vs Congress healthcare)

Are you sure you are not "tailgunner Joe"" reincarnated?

Posted by jonas1102 on 10/18/2011 10:24:00 PM (view original):

1 So they have a long list of mostly left wing ideas that they want? Do they really all want all those things?

2 I hope they start getting the same crap treatment the Tea Party got! Are they all stupid racists too?

Yeah, they are.   Sheep without a herder.   That's why it looks like Woodstock instead of a meaningful movement.

As for the media, anyone who doesn't think you see what they want you to see just doesn't pay attention.   But I'm having trouble finding anything that states they're doing something meaningful.

I think the Occupy movement has some potential, but they need to organize, and they need to do it fast.  Because in it's current state, it just comes across as a clusterfuck of hippies protesting something that they don't really understand because it seems like a cool thing to do.  And that's why so many people tend to disregard it as having no credibility.

There's an article on CNN.com today in which somebody points out that (ironically) they can learn some lessons from the Tea Party in how to make an impact.  But it seems that they are so stubbornly determined to stick to their current approach that that's unlikely to happen.  In the end, they'll be just a temporary blip on the radar unless they can somehow get their **** together.

I'm sure professors Mike and tecwrg totally know what they're talking about and aren't just pulling facts out of their *****, but anyway, here's another take on how the protesters are viewed:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/presence-of-wall-st-protesters-is-accepted-poll-finds/

And here's the CNN article that I referenced:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/18/us/occupy-wall-street-consensus-building/index.html

And here's the results of a survey done on the Occupiers by New York Magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/

Some of the more telling stats:

55% of the OWSers polled did not vote in the 2010 mid-term elections.
34% of the OWSers polled are convinced the the U.S. Government is no better than Al Qaeda.
37% of the OWSers believe that capitalism is inherently immoral.

Other comments: Wall Street can be fixed by "burning it down".

Yep.  There's a lot of credibility.

From your link:

We polled 100 protesters who are in it for the long haul.

I'd say it was the polling methods that have no credibility.  100 protesters!  What did 55% and 34% and 37% of those 100 people say again?  Ha ha.

 

 

By the way, that 3rd question is a bit weird.  I'm not sure that an economic system can be inherently moral or immoral.  But if those are the only choices, and the "100 protesters" who answered have eyes to see what's going on right there on Wall Street (presumably where they were asked these questions), what the hell is wrong with answering immoral?