All the OWS did was create public unrest, cause property damage and cost the taxpayers money through the overtime paid to all those cops who had to police the situation.
They discredited themselves when they turned violent and started causing problems for the cities they were occupying.
On police overtime -- protesters are not responsible for the ways in which authorities react to them.
On the rest of that: please substantiate. Note: Being subject to violence is not the same as being violent. Protesters are not responsible for property destruction by police in the course of their raids. Finally, OWS did not cause any public unrest. They ARE public unrest. Tea Party protests, are also, by definition, public unrest. They are the public demonstrating their dissatisfaction. That's what public unrest IS.
Then, you go on to state that the movement is somehow discredited..
Nice job, btw, taking this out of context instead of responding to it.
Their protests only resulted in them literally asking President Obama, who received the most amount of money from Wall Street in past 20 years, to police the whole administration and rid it of corruption.
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about here. OWS mic-checked Obama on one occassion, to condemn him for his silence on the matter of widespread abuse suffered by the movement. This is the only direct message the movement has ever sent to Obama.
Over 4000 peaceful protesters have been arrested. While bankers continue to destroy the American economy. You must stop the assault on our 1st amendment rights. Your silence sends a message that police brutality is acceptable. Banks got bailed out. We got sold out.
As I have pointed out, that will not work because he is already bought and owned by the same people the OWS were protesting. The guy let Solyndra take $535 million of taxpayer money and blow it. He hasn't even enacted any laws to fix the situation even when he had a democrat super majority when he took office.
Yes. I know you don't like Obama. I don't like him either. I know your specific beefs with him. They're not the same as mine. It doesn't really matter. We had this out of the way a long time ago, and it has no relevance here.
The whole idea of the OWS would have been better put to creating a political grassroots organization that will get people to actually vote. They have literally accomplished nothing other than asking the government to rid itself of corruption (which I honestly find hilarious).
I find it hilarious that you have obviously not bothered to actually communicate with a single Occupier directly (until now), because if you ever had, you would know this isn't true. We could argue back and forth for a week about accomplishments. I'm not going to bother. It would be pointless. What defines an accomplishment is subjective, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to agree on it.
However, it is ridiculous to say that OWS hasn't done anything but ask the government to fix itself, especially when
your very first criticism was that they chose to target Wall Street first instead of going straight for D.C. If you're going to condemn based on your personal expectations, could you please at least make up your mind on what those expectations are? You're literally saying that they should have done/be doing two opposite things at the same time.
They have openly criticized both business and government. They have also put out both very broad and very specific demands, including support for specific laws to be passed.
----- LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS -----
CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal . If we wanted to have a BIG IMPACT and we were able to have only one slogan that we could paint on signs and chant during marches within earshot of press, it would be "PASS HR 1489. REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL" or "RE-IN-STATE the ACT GLASS-STEAGALL. IT MAKES THE WALL STREET GAMES ILLEGAL"
USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. The Supreme Court decision is really weird. Read it when you have a chance. The justices who argued for unlimited corporate contributions thought that wouldn't have an adverse effect on democracy and wouldn't undermine the citizen's view of legitimacy of elections. I'm not sure there's a word for that it's so strange.
CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.
ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS (Sorry Mitt Romney)
RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
But what you need to realize is that nobody among the Occupy movement actually expects these demands to be met just because they're asking. They only put them out because their critics and the media have constantly hounded them for it (and still continue to insist that no demands have ever been produced).
OWS' primary focus has not been to influence business or government. In fact,
its overriding message is that those institutions cannot be trusted to fix the problems that they created to benefit them at the expense of everyone else. This is why it has made deliberate effort to avoid being defined by narrow demands, catchy soundbites, or snatching up into political status quo. It's up to the populace to gather together and implement their own solutions. It's a call to action to educate each other, build community bonds, explore different ways of living and supporting each other, and figure out how to deal with oppression at the hands of a body of power that does not care about them.
The Tea Party has already pointed out what the OWS decided to protest about more than a year prior!
The Tea Party pointed out similar things, but they had a very different style and focus. As I recall, their very first protests imitated the Boston Tea Party from which it took its name, and like the Boston Tea Party, it was concerned primarily with taxes. It's had a clearly libertarian agenda from the very beginning, which is for the reduction or complete elimination of government in favor of a world run entirely by the "free market".
FYI, I don't personally have anything against the Tea Party movement. I have a friend who is an avid Ron Paul supporter and considers himself a Tea Partier (and grumbles often about the hijacking of the movement). I have had hours upon hours of debates with him and he is a very well informed person. I almost always agree with him about the nature of our problems and their origins. What I can almost never agree with him on is solutions.
The impression I've got about the Tea Party is it tends not to be concerned with corruption on the business side of things and only with the government side of things. They believe that corruption in business isn't possible without government and/or will sort itself out in the absence of government influence. The general belief among OWS, on the other hand, is that this would only lead to the ultra wealthy holding absolute power with no obstacles. The reason economic equality is so bad is because government, previously the only barrier to unstoppable abuse by the wealthy, became poisoned with money and stopped doing its job.
Now we could argue for fucking ever about political ideologies here. That's not necessary for this discussion. My point with this is that just because the Occupy movement isn't serving YOUR agenda doesn't mean it isn't doing anything. You can complain all you want that it isn't doing the things you want it to do, but I will call you out on every step if you don't base your insults on factual content.
The Tea Party actually produced results in an election. The Tea Party has actually elected candidates who are in the Tea Party caucus, a party that is for the reduction of government and getting rid of the corruption! They even produce good music (this one is subjective *cough*)!
How convenient for you that the movement you favor
has actually had the opportunity to influence a major election. Occupy has not yet had that opportunity, so it isn't fair to condemn them on the basis that they haven't done this. FYI, various chapters are putting forth their own candidates. Barbarossa would be in a much better position to inform you on that subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_wall_street#Goals
"Even with the perception of a movement with no leaders, leaders have emerged."
Yeah? Why don't you quote the rest of that paragraph?
Even with the perception of a movement with no leaders, leaders have emerged. A facilitator of some of the movement's more contentious discussions, Nicole Carty, says “Usually when we think of leadership, we think of authority, but nobody has authority here,” - “People lead by example, stepping up when they need to and stepping back when they need to.”[79] According to Fordham University communications professor Paul Levinson, Occupy Wall Street and similar movements symbolize another rise of direct democracy that has not actually been seen since ancient times.[80][81]
Not quite the kind of leadership you seem to be suggesting.....
Author
Topic: Occupying Wallstreet (Read 296254 times)