Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OccupyWallStreet.....POLL.....Yes/No.....Good/Bad

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 14, 2012, 5:42 a.m. EST by Saydee (33)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

YES or NO is fine.

  1. Do you think the Occupy Wall Street movement is the beginning of a totally different, NEW and improved world?
  2. In the long-run do you think the results be good or bad?

Expound if you like.

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago
  1. No, Utopian Socialism has always worsened situations for the many, even if the few, in the movement, get there way.
  2. In it's current form, bad.
[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I thought free market was utopian socialism

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Free markets are more about colonizing nations through trade and debt.

[-] 4 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
  1. No, because there is too much resistance to the idea of selecting any specific objective, or working to make our government more responsive to our concerns.

  2. Results can't be either good or bad if there are no results.

[-] -1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Aren't there ALWAYS results?

[-] 4 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no

neither

[-] 4 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

1.No. It's a cyclical behavior in society to maintain balance and started behind the curve(late).

2.Very Good

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but I think it's only talk of a new and improved world, there isn't any plan for action that would actually improve things, so when people have tired of just hearing ideas, no matter how good, they'll find we're right where we were at the start.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Don't you think that would drive them a bit crazy? I mean, so many people sick and living in poverty; wouldn't it eventually get tiresome...to say the least? Many great things have begun with talk. The founding fathers and their ideas, (and talk), were very similar to what's being forged out of the Occupy movement.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

The founding fathers set up a government and managed to work out a system that 13 state governments out of 13 agreed to. So far occupy has avoided working within the system. They complain about it but make no move to do more. That I find very frustrating, when there are groups across the nation in so many congressional districts that could work to recruit good candidates for congress and get real change, but instead they limit themselves to talk.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Yeah but...the founding fathers had YEARS to complete what you mentioned. The Occupy movement is 4 months old! And remember, they were all talk for a few years too!

Check out the movie- John Adams; a mini-series. It really shows the similarities between both movements.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

True, but Occupy has no intention of using the system at all to make changes from within. If they think there will be a popular uprising then I believe they are misjudging the level of discontent. Few are willing to risk what they actually do have to completely throw out the government. I get the feeling there is a hidden agenda for some form of libertarian socialism, that doesn't stand a chance of being supported to any degree in this country.

Pointing to John Adams highlights the biggest difference, the American Revolution had respected leaders. Civil Rights had King. A faceless mob doesn't give me a sense that there is someone there to take actual responsibility for decisions.

[-] 1 points by godsbestjoke (122) 2 years ago

Don't be sorry silly. Just don't claim to be surprised when the National Guard are rolling down city streets and threatening Americas unemployed, youth and millions of others.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I don't see that as a likely event either.

[-] 1 points by godsbestjoke (122) 2 years ago

Many people have made similar comments just before the event that wasn't likely to happen...happened.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Occupy hasn't gained enough of a following to raise that to a realistic possibility. Their active avoidance of participation in government leads to frustration in those that want real change. I see it as more likely that Occupy will stay small, fade away, or be replaced by organizations willing to take political action in addition to protest.

[-] 2 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

No, and no changes in the system.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

No I don't think so. In a year or two it may be impossible to tell it was ever here.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Same world after is gone, no real change.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

OWS is powerless. It showed strength at the beggining of the movement but it is getting weaker by the day. I dont think people can change anything just by getting together. It is great to debate things that matter to us but the only way to change this country is to get power and change things yourself. Politicians dont give a sht. That s why protesting is a right. They will still go on with their daily routines.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Its being steeered towards the establishment. It will be gobbled up sooner or later. Something extremely divisive will happen, if it gets too big.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Very interesting perspective. For the most part I agree.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

In the end OWS will have no real effect. Other movements will.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

If other movements have effects would the occupy movement be credited in some way for say...inspiring such movements?

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Ha. That's a stretch!

[-] 3 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

It could happen...!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Inspiring a protest. Is that a good a thing ?

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Well...It COULD be I suppose. I mean, that's pretty much what happened to create the United States of America.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

You may have something there.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Thanks for responding everybody!

[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago
  1. Hahaha!

  2. Results?

[-] 0 points by mako (42) 2 years ago
  1. NO

  2. No Impact Whatsoever

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

No. The results will be minimal. Other things to come will effect the real change.

[-] 0 points by poltergist22 (159) 2 years ago

If they adopted policies like ..www.nationalday911.org and quit the destructive attitude ...yes

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago
  1. NO

  2. No Impact

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

OWS is a Mexican movement. And since they fled the corruption and crime back in their own country they will never succeed here hiding behind curtains like the cowards they are.

[-] 2 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

LOL....Are ALL christians this hateful? You guys and the rest of the republicants should really start your own comedy channel. Oh, and BTW, let's see your coward-ass cross THEIR border! I'd be willing to bet you'd run as fast as the shit they'd scare out of you if you did. LMAO!

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Who's Christian ?

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yes

[-] -2 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Yes. Good. People will not be denied, but rewarded.

[-] -3 points by godsbestjoke (122) 2 years ago

Sounds a bit grand, but YES. I do think we are about to witness something truly extraordinary this spring and summer. People united.

GOOD! The betterment of mankind is always good.

[-] 0 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

I agree with you, but like another comment stated, it could get worse before it gets better.

[-] -3 points by jppt (82) 2 years ago

yes, good

[-] -3 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 2 years ago

Yes I believe OWS is a movement that will make a better world. We are showing that we must take care of each other. We must look past our differences and enbrace the things important to all of us, just to survive. The results of this movement have already shown we can make things better. We are changing the conversation, we are watching people all over the world fight their governemts for their freedoms, and are in solidarty with us here in the us. It is bringing people the dream and having others behind them in solidarity.

[-] -3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

1.) It was, but now that some are seeing conservative minded folks as racists and ignorant it is in danger of becoming a marginalized rant fest of those incapable of improving anything with happy thoughts.

If OWS is to change anything, then results orientated conservatives must be included, as we are 40-60% of the 99%

2.) if it is to have staying power, then those of faith must be included as we are the 80-90% of the 99%

but if God is to be barred from the conversation, and Ideas of equality and morality are seen as part of the problem, then OWS will be relegated to an atheistic/communistic regurgitation of the far leftist agenda.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Makes sense. I wonder if open conversation about race-relations might be a good way to dilute the tension. I would argue that not ALL conservatives are seen as ignorant racists.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

That would be interesting, yes race-relations should be discussed.

But I doubt that would ease the tensions, for that is also a divisive subject, but one worthy of discussing.

But unfortunately, yes, many if not most liberal folks here believe conservatives are ignorant and racist, and blindly believe silly reports to back up such prejudices.

I know this, for I take them at their word, and when such reports came out, most said that 'they always knew this about conservatives' that they were 'low in intelligence' and 'racist'

And when I pointed this out, that those style reports were divisive and only served to feed into their own preconceived stereotypes, why then they could lazily think that that poor poor conservative, he's just not smart enough to see it, and he clings to religion out of fear, so therefor he's a closet racist too, instead of arguing on the facts at hand, so that it is self re-enforcing ignorance.

So, yeah, talk with many here for long, and that is the shared prejudice amongst most liberals, and reminds me of nazi reports on how Jewish folks were low in intelligence back in the 1930's

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Well....at least WE'RE talking. I guess that's as good a place to start as any.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

yes, yes it is.

And once we talk, hopefully more people see that liberals and conservatives have more in common then what separates them.

In fact here are a few areas where conservatives and liberals worked together to get something accomplished:

Abolition of slavery

Anti-monopoly laws

Worker rights

Food safety

Ending fascism and opposition to russian communism

Civil rights

People ignore/forget that these things were done by conservative republicans like Abe lincoln, teddy roosevelt, and dwight eisenhower.

[-] 1 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

Nicely said. We really could add a lot more to that list I suppose. It really is what we were designed to do...HELP one another.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Religion and faith is an ideology. Ideology often gets in the way of the facts. It would be better to keep God out of it. And stick to the facts. Something many people find difficult to do. And in some cases people will stubbornly resist the facts presented to them if it does not fit their ideology. Especially religious ideology. Because God is a higher calling than the facts. This is not helpful.

God doesn't have exclusive rights to equality and morality.

I can think of no good reason why God should have anything to do with politics or OWS. And in fact, I think the Religious Right is probably just as dangerous and damaging to politics and policy as perhaps the 1% is.

For it is the Religious Right, through their propensity for and acceptance of blind indoctrination that does not require facts, who are the most gullible and easily swayed by politicians who perversely use God to their political advantage. Instead of facts, despite the facts, and even contrary to the facts.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes religion and faith are an ideology, so is liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, neoconservatism/neoliberalism, socialism, marxism,nationalism, capitalism, and Anarchist syndicalism.

All of these things are divisive and yet we do bring these to the table to discuss their merits or their corruptness. And all lay claim to a higher morality and search for equality.

They are all by nature, political. When any wish to ban one or another from the conversation, it's usually because it's contrary to their own political views.

And when what we disagree with is banned, then we have no hope of new growth, for it is in the discussion of what we disagree with that we either gain new ideas, or see more reason to believe what we believe.

Your post:

For it is the Religious Right, through their propensity for and acceptance of blind indoctrination that does not require facts, who are the most gullible and easily swayed by politicians who perversely use God to their political advantage. Instead of facts, despite the facts, and even contrary to the facts.

What you just said can be true about any of the other isms as well. But if we bring all viewpoints to the table and discuss their merits or point out their hypocrisy, then there is room for new growth.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Those other isms aren't Constitutionally protected by the separation of Church and State. I don't look to politics to "grow" my religious beliefs. I find the thought of that rather disgusting.

I'm offended by the use of God in politics . So should everyone be. There should be separation of Church and State. This should include politics. God is not political. Yet politicians (Republicans especially) use God and religion for political advantage. It's wrong, dangerous, irresponsible and perverse.

We would get better results to leave religion out of it. There's no reason we can't discuss political issues based on the merits of the issues. With logic and reason. There's no need to bring religion into it. It shouldn't be part of politics.

Yet, Rick Santorum has used it to practically designated himself The Savior. By attacking Pres. Obama on religion saying the Pres. is hostile to religion. As if He is the Savior. It's disgusting . He should be shunned for it. Instead he is revered for it. By the Evangelicals and Religious Right.

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/rick-santorum-president-obama-wants-to-decapitate-religion-america

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Separation of church and state is just that, separation of church and state.

But this cannot include politics, for it is our strongly held beliefs that we discuss, and moral imperatives that guild us.

When people say they want separation of church and politics, not only are they trying to win the argument by saying their opponent doesn't have a right to speak, but are also trying to suppress those things that have the potential to bring about positive change as well.

And as far as getting better results, well, looking back on 30 years of pulling God out of the public arena, and the track record has been pretty crappy.

If we continue down this road of confining the message of God and Morality to the 4 walls of the church, don't be surprised when society goes to hell in a handbasket, oh wait...... too late.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The state is inherently political. Therefore, that separation should extend to politics.

God and religion do not have exclusive rights to morality. You seem incapable of separating morality and God. You seem to be suggesting that a person cannot be moral without religion. A person cannot be moral without knowing God? Whos God? "Your" God? Are all other Gods ok too? Whos God is right? What if a person is athiest? Can athiests not be moral? You need to separate God from morality. I don't confine morality to the four walls of the church. I confine God and religion to the four walls of the church.

It is "your" personal belief that religion brings about positive change. Others may disagree. "You" think that God in politics can bring about positive change. I say no. I say it's wrong and perverse. Who's right? I don't know. So lets just leave God out of it instead of muddying the waters. Let's disucss policy on it's merits using logic and facts. Are you not capable of discussing policy without bringing God into it? Because if you bring "your" God beliefs into it, I might then feel the need to bring my God beliefs into it. Then we're right back to whos God is right. What have we accomplished?

If you have to bring "your" God and "your" religion into an argument of a political issue, to support your position, if that's the best argument you've got for a position, your argument is not very strong.

Lets stick to the policy issue, using logic and facts, and we have a better chance of getting somewhere. Facts will get us to better results. A better result than descending into a debate over "your" God beliefs v my God beliefs. Because you can't prove my God beliefs are wrong and I can't prove your God beliefs are wrong. So it's better we stick to the facts, that can be proven right or wrong. We will get a better result.

Suppression of speech happens all the time. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It's wrong and it's dangerous. God in politics is wrong and dangerous.

It's counterproductive. Because it can only result in "your" God v my God. People try to "win" arguments by using God - it's a weak position. It only means there are no logical arguments and facts to support a position. If there are strong facts to support, then there is no reason to bring God into it. Logic and facts will get us a better result. Leave God out of it.

The result of politics is policy making. The intent of the separation of church and state is to not allow God, or any single God or religion into policy making. So what is the point of God talk in politics if it's not allowed in policy making?

If you're going to bring God into politics, why not policy making too? If God is so great and can bring about so much positive change, lets make laws with God right in there. Lets just throw out separation of church and state.

I don't see that God is less in the public arena in the past 30 years. I think God is more intertwined in politics. The Religous Right is a more powerful force in politics, not less. And I don't think the Religious Right is the answer to any of our problems. I think the Religious Right is extremely damaging and dangerous to politics.

Whatever hell in handbasket exists in society, it's "your" belief that God is the answer to that. You're free to spread your religion to save society in any other way, but not through politics. Go spread your God message door to door with pamphlets. Volunteer at your church to recruit new members. That would be an entirely appropriate way to spread the Good Word of God.

Just keep "your" God and religious views out of politics. Because it's my state too. Your right to yap about God in politics is infringing on my separation of church and state. It's wrong and it's dangerous. And I wouldn't want to be in a crowded theater with someone like you either.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Nice job, April.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

TY.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

And I wouldn't want someone with your militant view in politics for their has been those that HAVE removed religion from politics, and they were Hitler, Stalin, and Moa zedong.

The track record for those that wish to remove God from politics isn't good.

Unless of course you can name anywhere this has been done with a positive effect?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Hitler used his religious bias for genocide. He was acting in the name of God and his religion as if his religion was superior. Stalin and Mao sought to abolish religion. To separate is different than to abolish.

They are good examples of exactly why we have separation of church as state and freedom of religion. You're making my argument for separation (Hitler) and an argument for religious freedom (Stalin and Mao).

Politics leads to policy. That is the whole point of politics. If you want God in politics then it follows that you want God in policy making. According to your logic we might as well get rid of the separation of church and state. Is that what you want? How do you distingush politics from policy making? One leads to the other. That's the whole point. Please clarify your position on this. I do not understand your views on this.

Canada has far more separation of church and state. They don't have all of the God talk in politics like the we do here.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

OMG, have the schools really gotten that bad, Here this is hitler's OWN WORDS on religion:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm

And here is one excerpt on his thoughts on religion in the temporal realm:

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them.

We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

This could have been written by you or girl friday, and people here would believe that it lines up with your world view.

And here is stalin: America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. – Joseph Stalin

And Stalin and lenin knew this because they first undermined spiritual and religious speech first in Russia, they specifically set out to confine religion to the 4 walls of the church

And Mao when he first became a revolutionary sought to suppress religious speech, before he sought to stomp it out

All 3 are cases of socialistic atheism seeking to banish religion from political discourse

So not only are you wrong, but are aligned with the 3 biggest monsters of the 20th century

Then you actually wonder why people find you repulsive?

what a nieve leftist, but hopefully now you can see why the more that folks like you are seen as the face of OWS, the more it goes down the shitter

It's because americans are fair-minded and hold deep religious convictions, and we know intolerance when we see it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Just because it is there to be referenced:

Separation of Church and State did end the Crusades.

That was a very good thing.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

True, and I never was deriding the idea of seperation of church and state, just the extreme view of church and politics.

Especially when a politician claims to be christian, then ignores the plees of the poor, this hypocracy is best pointed out from a religious view point, though the pointer doesn't have to be a christian.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

When a politician claims to be Christian - all the more reason to leave God out of it. Politicians should be discussing their views using facts and specific policy actions and ideas. God talk won't help the poor. Specific policy ideas will.

What is the point of highlighting hypocrisy? Just to point a finger at hypocrisy?

Politicians should be endorsing policy or addressing specifics about issues using facts. Rather than wasting time with God talk. Then we hold them accountable for their policies and the results. We don't hold them accountable for their God talk and any hypocrisy they might exhibit based on religion. He either delivers on policy or he doesn't.

Do you think we should hold politicians accountable for their policy results? Or their church attendance?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

When ANY politician claims ANY religion, then goes counter to those ethics and morality they can be rightly called into account, it's about being a conscience of a nation, and whatever your world view, all voices have a place at the political table

Again, the point is to point out hypocrisy first, then effect change through it.

Which is EXACTLY what the reverend MLK did, and he worked positive change by doing so, and his speeches were infused with religious phrases and overtones, and he spoke truth to power, and struck america in it's heart, and changed it for the better.

But people like you would have none of that, no way, by your own words: t's counterproductive. Because it can only result in "your" God v my God. People try to "win" arguments by using God - it's a weak position. It only means there are no logical arguments and facts to support a position. If there are strong facts to support, then there is no reason to bring God into it. Logic and facts will get us a better result. Leave God out of it.

You would have changed nothing in the civil rights movement, nor anyone else if your advice had been followed back then.

And the same with Gandhi, for he also appealed to the brittish sense of right and wrong to win India's independence.

You can try to make it about Christianity, but that is a straw man argument, for it is all voices that belong at the table, as I've said before here and elsewhere, people here long enough know this.

Your problem is with any religion, for that is exactly what you said earlier:

It is "your" personal belief that religion brings about positive change. Others may disagree. "You" think that God in politics can bring about positive change. I say no. I say it's wrong and perverse. Who's right? I don't know. So lets just leave God out of it instead of muddying the waters. Let's disucss policy on it's merits using logic and facts. Are you not capable of discussing policy without bringing God into it? Because if you bring "your" God beliefs into it, I might then feel the need to bring my God beliefs into it. Then we're right back to whos God is right. What have we accomplished?

You say that you want to use logic in discussing policy, whereas what's to say my religious beliefs or any lack thereof wasn't arrived at through logic?

Oh, that's right, your blind arrogance tells you that if someone comes to a conclusion that you haven't reach, they must be either dumb or self deluded, you cannot accept that people of faith, whatever it may be, arrived at it by logic.

And it's logical to call politicians to task if they lay claim to a belief system, yet go counter to it's ethos.

Which is the point, whether a person is a theist, or atheist it's their belief system(religion) that drives them, or can change their policies, or, barring that, convince those that elected them that they arn't what they purport to be.

But, when leftists like you try to push religion back into the 4 walls of the church(or temple etc. ad nausium) we see from history the results:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

This is what happens when the conscience of a nation is eliminated from public discourse.

And you still can't name anywhere where religion was taken from the public arena that had a good result.

your ignorance coupled with your blind arrogance shows that you do NOT represent anything more than the 1.6% and not even that, for I've known a few atheist's, and militant ones are rare here, more like the .6%, but survey says:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

We are a very religious nation, and we are a tolerant one as well, despite those with a superiority complex like you and girl friday.

opiate of the masses my ass.....

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes there are words and then there are actions.

This is why I am here, fighting corruption and advocating universal support.

[+] -4 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

yes and good!!!!

[+] -4 points by beautifulworld (21297) 2 years ago

Yes and good. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

[+] -4 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago
  1. A qualified 'Yes' in the sense that the factors affecting the establishment of Occupy are unique and so if this movement is successful, outcomes will change the trajectory of self interest that began shortly after World War II and has become so dominant.

  2. As Gust Avrakotos is credited as saying in "Charlie Wilson's War"

"A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how wonderful.” But a Zen master who lives in the village says, “We'll see.” 'The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how awful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.” The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, “Oh, how wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.”

I hope for the best, I prepare for the worst.

[+] -4 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The future is hard to predict. It is quite possible the movement will be stamped out. The forces of evil are very strong.

[+] -5 points by Saydee (33) 2 years ago

YES. GOOD.