There's been a lot of discourse about the connection between government and business, about how if our government is in any way going to pretend it isn't a bundle of hypocrisy it should hold bankers accountable, etc. I'm honestly surprised you haven't seen any of it, even if it is correct to assume you haven't looked too deep into the movement.
You are assuming I haven't seen it. You could have saved yourself a bunch of words by asking me the question directly.
What I am saying is that people seem to associate corruption
solely with the Republican party, as if the democrats have been completely devoid of any sort of corruption.
Not only that, conversations about opinions of the government are automatic within the OWS. Due to its foundation, OWS is not politically affiliated as a whole, but its members (and supporters) have a wide variety of political beliefs (including no political affiliation themselves). The only thing that's certain is that members of the OWS are not happy with the current situation and believe Wall Street is to blame (at least in large part) for the economic state the citizens of the country are currently in. Due to America's prevalence in the world economy, this can be extrapolated to cover the economic state of other countries as well.
I suppose it would be too late to point out that their protesting do not really accomplish anything. Did it bring any more attention to what was already widely known? No, since most of what the OWS was protesting about has already been said by the Tea Party a year prior.
However, simply acknowledging that should also lead one to conclude that if Wall Street is to blame, then were was a major failing on the part of the government to not protect the citizenry; such a failing may or may not be forgiven, but if the government does not place new restrictions or takes measures to prevent such action in the future or does not hold accountable those at fault, then opinion of the government will probably be much worse.
The government isn't going to police itself. That is akin to asking a criminal to watch a bank and set policy, his salary, etc.
The very same government that let this whole mess take place, and you would rather let them police themselves is not going to produce the results you are looking for. Government officials only answer to a motivated voting public that is not afraid to toss their asses out the next election if they fuck up.
Look at what the Tea Party did the last senatorial election.
After thinking about it, I can't really say that I dislike the Tea Party due to corruption. However, I notice in your second sentence you stick "Republicans" in there like a bad earmark on a budget reformation bill. If you seriously think no one believes that the Republican party is corrupt, you should really do your research better.
The Tea Party is a political party that is backed by citizens who actually want to see change happen in the Government. I suggest you read up on them.
Eh, I guess I can't help it really. Political biasedness!
Would it work better if i changed it to "Republicans and Democrats"? :O
So why the need to illegally occupy public
Wasn't illegal when they started doing it. Public officials began using reactionary methods to deal with them.
I suppose it depends on what the laws say regarding the use of public property (Anybody knowledgeable about this please correct me if I am wrong!). I believe there are laws regarding assembling for a specific amount of time to protest in a public place. This would involve buying permits to do so, since I have read about the Tea Party demanding their money back for paying for permits to protest in the cities where the OWS protested later and the same local governments didn't press them for anything.
and private property
This was done once protesters were ousted from public property. I can only recall certain situations where the property was actually 'private' property, as in for all intents and purposes the property functions as public land, it is just owned privately and not by the city.
In Zuccoti Park, which was private land. At the outset it appears (I am not entirely sure) that the owner let them use the land, thinking they would be out in short order. When it became apparent of the health and sanity issues surrounding the whole place, he wanted to get them out.
Over in Oakland, it was regarding public property.
around the country?
... I'm not even sure how to address that. Are you ignoring logistics, the lack of a central base of power for the OWS, the need to be public with the protests, etc.?
From what I have read, it appears the OWS is actually more about a leaderless, more horizontal structure (ie: more indians, less chiefs) which allows them to be somewhat flexible in what they do.
The OWS protests are going on around the country (even the world.. Occupy Grand Prairie, WTF?), yes.. Oakland and NYC are the two biggest places where they have taken hold. Nearly every other city has varying degrees to how many people are protesting.
And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later?
And let us not forget, the OWS, since it started, protested continuously about exactly what SalmonGod stated. Occupy Congress was an event that was held when it seemed that such a gathering might be feasible.
Again, so why did it take them so long to actually figure out what to protest about?
They did not establish a "general assembly" until a few weeks into the protest.
Which contradicts their stated goal as being a leaderless organization.
Which means that nobody could have been protesting for the same thing until they all agreed on what to actually protest about, or establish any of this group-think mentality. This is why the whole thing was aimed at Wall Street in general before they actually realized that Obama is an empty suit and started demanding government rid itself of corruption (which as I have pointed out earlier, is rather bizarre).
You should seriously do your homework on this before making such claims.
I would like to think that I know enough about it to educate you on what it really is. But then again, opinions are like assholes and everybody has two!