Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: This is a very steady trend for Occupy

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 21, 2012, 10:25 p.m. EST by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by MichaelB (128) 9 years ago

It shows more that additional public curiosity and interest is only sparked by some event. I do wonder though if the up-ticks indicate that a large segment of the population is simply unaware of occupy or unconcerned about it until there is some news item.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago

Interestingly, I watched a CSPAN show last night of an occupy meeting in a Unitarian church in California. Note: the Google report only deals with internet traffic, and so I don't see how this report says very much about the movement in general, or its popularity. Obviously, there's spikes when there's large public protests, but otherwise most of the work is happening at a very grass roots level (the sort of thing that won't show up on an internet traffic report).

I guess many Americans have become so accustomed to instant gratification, they think a system which took decades to break, can be fixed in the span of a few months. OWS is a movement that really needs years (not months) to realize its major goals. Sure, maybe come Spring, we'll see more protests (and another spike in public interest), maybe offshoots of OWS develop a political strategy of some sort (maybe an organization with like minded goals will come up with something like a "pledge" for political candidate to sign, and things of that nature). But the core ideas of OWS will take years of grass roots activity at the community level, to cultivate.

If we're interacting with people in places like college campuses, we participate in or form charitable organizations, we start getting involved in the process (like volunteering as election monitors, forming local public interest organizations that advocates for the disenfranchised, etc.), eventually these ideas will permeate every aspect of our society.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I find it completely selfish that Occupy had the potential to be something powerful and would selfishly only focus on some outlandish, unrealistic, pie in the sky nonsense of the longterm plan for ending government, creating some kind of egalitarian societies, or whatever else OWS ptb thinks should be the long term answer.

Who are they to say what the long term goal should be when they are oh so democratic? Who are they to say there should only be that such long term goal that they decide when there are so many people that need help now. In the short term. How come there can't be some short term goals? Like, realistic ones!!

OWS isn't really interested in helping people. If it were, it would at least also have some realistic short term goals that would be the most helpful to the most people. Instead it only cares about promoting what OWS ptb wants to promote. Anarchist/egalitarian societies. OWS ptb has decided this is the answer and either put on your solidarity hat and get with that program or - we're really not so "inclusive" as we claim to be. So move along. OWS is only inclusive in so far as you agree with their long term plan and their methods.

If you want any concrete change working through government, as if there is anything else, this is clearly not the place for that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Now you are getting it April this is not the place to "work through government" as the government simply does not work for the 99%, it works almost exclusively for the 1%. If you are not for an egalitarian society the what are you for?

e·gal·i·tar·i·an - characterized by the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.

We have an unequal society now, and I for one an not a fan of it. Too much needless suffering.

How is it "selfish" as you keep accusing over, and over, and over,. . to keep "leaders" out by maintaining a consensus process??? Does this not provide the most democratic and inclusive of organisational models?? Remember, you are free to pursue ANY "realistic short term goals that would be the most helpful to the most people." on your own, or with any affinity group you choose inside or outside of OWS. If you spent half the time working on those goals, as you do shouting how unfair you think OWS is, actual change could have already come about. Or are you only able to work under a 'leader"?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I'm multi-task capable. If it makes you feel better - I'm doing volunteer work for a candidate for US Representive. So stop telling me to to pursue other things. I'm already doing that.

It's selfish that OWS didn't use the energy that it once had for more realistic short term goals, such as ending government corruption, which has like 80% popular support.

Instead it selfishly only pursues it's own long range ideals. Better to let government corruption continue as long as possible, so it takes that much longer to achieve, rather than to help solve this problem. All the better for OWS ptb to achieve their long term goals so long as there is as much discontent as possible in society. Totally selfish.

It really has nothing to do with working under a "leader". Though I do think having a leader/leadership would be far more effective. Short of that, having a realistic focused short term goal would be great. OWS isn't even capable of that much. Or selfishly refuses to do so.

If OWS ptb were really smart, they would want to promote their ideas and principles as successful. There's no better proof of success than success itself. Like choosing one concrete realistic objective that would get the most support, like campaign reform. And help to put sustained effort to help make that happen. Choosing to accomplish things incrementally, one step at a time. One success would lead to another.

No, I'm not a fan of an unequal society. That's why I would like to see campaign reform happen. When we have better representation in government, we will be more equal than we are now. Maybe not as equal as you would like. But it's incremental. It would improve all of our situations, a little bit at least, in the more short term.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

This notion that Occupy hasn't accomplished anything is just a talking point. The truth is quite the reverse, or you wouldn't be here.

[-] 1 points by sencha (39) 9 years ago

A few years is a long time if you have no health care or housing. A few years is a long time to watch environmental destruction continue unabated.

The lack of urgency within the movement makes me believe it is, indeed, comprised of individuals in the "comfortable to affluent" range.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago

That sustained and deep changes will take time, doesn't preclude us from pursuing short term reforms that help people "now" (and can hopefully avoid or prolong ecological consequences inherent in our fossil fuel use and some industrial processes). I'm not sure how anyone gets the idea that OWS doesn't support "both" approaches (everything I've seen, read, and heard, strongly suggest they do acknowledge the need for both, and are working to achieve both).

I mean, there's strong support for getting money out of politics, banking reform, and various other measures. The first stretch of this movement was about getting attention quite frankly (a necessary precondition of inducing change). I hope that this spring, we begin to see more focused protests (aimed at specific issues, and more immediate change).

One of my favorite ideas, not a new idea (but a good idea nonetheless), is generating a pledge for political candidates to sign. It's a proven strategy. I also think something like the tea party approach (as one prong of our overall strategy) is worth considering. Why not help political candidates who are willing to pledge support for the things we support? There's no reason to fear this idea, and it won't dilute work in other areas (like grass roots efforts to build a sustainable organizational infrastructure). It also doesn't necessarily imply "co-opting" by political parties.

[-] 1 points by sencha (39) 9 years ago

Well said.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

Alexa has much more stats... and I wouldn't worry...Spring will be quite a difference


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The Alexa stats say exactly the same thing. And I don't understand what spring has to do with it?

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

to me the trend appears to be more internet, less camping

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

To me the trend appears to be less of everything.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

You were saying that way back in October. You've been predicting the end of this movement since the begining.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I've been talking about how to keep it from ending since the beginning. Too late now.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

You keep saying that, but that is not a reflection of what I'm seeing at all! Just the opposite!

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

yet here you are on the internet talking about it

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Because I've been here for many months and I'm sad to see an opportunity squandered.

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

you're silly if you think that no encampments and no candidates means occupy has failed. candidates. hahahaha. thats so tea party...

anyway i am glad occupy has ignored your advice for this long and i look forward to occupy ignoring you in the future

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

So, Occupy has succeeded, because Occupy is above having goals? It's a post-modern movement that doesn't need to accomplish anything in order to accomplish something?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Wow. An even better excuse to add to my list. Occupy didn't fail, because it was never meant to accomplish anything! I love that one. Best yet!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Objectives are for the unenlightened, apparently.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Realistic objectives are so bourgeois. : )

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

according to you occupy would succeed if there were encampments everywhere and if only it had some candidates, thats all i said, and every time i tell you again it makes me laugh a little.

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

i dont even give you the credit to reword that atrocious sentence. you are at a new low because i almost always care

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I've been posting here for months and I've never condoned the encampments.

I have, however, condoned participating in the democratic process to make government more responsive to our concerns. I would tell you all about it but I already know that for you it's tl;dr.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 9 years ago

So public interest or curiosity fall off when nothing considered news worthy is being accomplished, shouldn't be much of a surprise.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, exactly. I was warning about this for months, during the time when a lot of Occupiers were deluded into thinking that they represented 99% of the population, and that Occupy was going to keep growing indefinitely. They ironically had the same sort of irrational exuberance as the people betting on housing prices rising indefinitely. Occupy failed to accomplish objectives because it failed to focus on objectives. Because it refused to accept that focusing on objectives was necessary. It failed to organize into something persistent because it refused to accept that organizing was necessary. It failed to use our democratic system to make our government more responsive to our concerns because it refused to accept that participating in democracy was necessary. Now it's well on its way to being a footnote in history.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

This movement will be remembered as the most non-inclusive, idiotically portrays itself as inclusive and democratic, ineffective, self-destructive, could have accomplished some great things, movement in the history of the world. Because it stubbornly and selfishly clings to it's self-important methods that are completely ineffective and only serves to drive people away.

As it continues to drive people away in it's present form, those that are left will continue to make the necessary excuses. It's the governments, the authorities fault. It's the media's fault. It's the 1% fault. And my personal favorite, it's a young movement still trying to find itself. Where there's no leadership there can be no responsibility or accountability. It's the perfect excuse to blame everyone and anything else for it's failings.

Rather than acknowledge the obvious. Anarchy methods don't work.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 9 years ago

I agree, I had hoped at first it would be something national that could recruit candidates for congress and actually do something.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I had hoped too. Short of that, even if the movement would focus on one or a few key objectives. That might even work. Despite the methods. Like getting money out of politics. Which has such broad base support and would be the most helpful for the most people. My God, even many right wing conservatives could be won over with this. And focusing on that with unrelenting sustained pressure.

There's nothing like success as proof of success. That's PR that money can't buy.

One success would lead to another, incrementally. This whole idea of being everything to everyone is turning into being nothing for anybody.

But I'm afraid with the current structure, the movement won't be able to get there. It's too wound up in endless circles of undecision making because of the structure that it can't find it's way to anywhere.

[-] -3 points by KochRocks (-70) 9 years ago

This is not a movement but it is a slowly dying fad

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

these graphs are not supported by enough description


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

They're a measurement of search traffic on Google, and they're used to infer trends in awareness.

Steady awareness examples:



Explanation from Google:


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Isn't that what you wanted?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago


I've been warning since October that this is what would happen if Occupy refused to focus on concrete objectives. I wouldn't have done that if I wanted this to happen.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

At the onset of any trend you are going to see a big spike as those who had not heard of it yesterday, because it did not exist, look for it for the first time. Then you will see a gradual decline as people begin to use direct URLs to Occupy sites or head back to their "trusted" news sources of choice. There is no actual information in that graph unless you are using it to compare the onsets of trends and their trailing declines in respect to each other.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You can believe all of that if you like. Here's a counter example:


Here's another view aimed directly at the occupywallst.org site, instead of the search target "occupy wall street".


[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

Try comparing the trend for "Occupy Wall Street" with the trend "OWS" and you'll find they spike at different times. The occupation in NYC was the first, but as more occupations spread people started searching for their more localized occupations. Pinterest is a unique term for a single website, but occupy began to diffuse as soon as multiple occupy sites started popping up. If you could combine all Occupy (local cities) into one search then you will get closer to an accurate graph.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You can do that like this:


Still not good...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Didn't you hire someone that you met through this site?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes and he's been a tremendous asset. At least I accomplished something and benefited from that spike.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

I remember that conversation very well.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I can only guess as to why that made such an impression on you, or why it made you conclude that I wanted Occupy to trend downward. This is a sad thing, IMHO. An opportunity squandered.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

No. Why would I? Endless protests are not going to change anything. Participating in our democratic process is the way to make government more responsive to your concerns.


[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

You can do two things at once, Tech. It is humanly possible. It does change things. It has the capacity to light a fire under people's ass to address needs. If you have people that are telling you not to vote, its a ploy. But, I haven't seen you address the problems that ALEC has created through legislation. (unless I missed it).

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Occupy is not doing two things at once. Occupy is not even doing one thing at once. Occupy can't even figure out what it is. You apparently think that it's about ALEC, other people think that it's about anarchy, other people think that it's about direct democracy, other people think that it's about ...

That's why people aren't sticking around. They show up to learn more about what Occupy is, they find out that it's everything and nothing, and they get bored and move on to something else. With no focus, this will all fade away. With no focus on any one thing, what is there to hold it together?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

People don't stick around here because the place was infested with trolls. Still is. So, let's not bullshit around.

The majority of the issues are interconnected.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Even the trolls are getting bored. I don't think that they're the key issue in why people aren't sticking around.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Oh, but they are the reason. One would hope they would become so bored that they just left.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Are the trolls the reason for the declining search trends for Occupy? And the declining Alexa trends?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Occupy is not declining. I think that you will find that there are more people involved at local levels. In fact, there are other forums where people just go to where the information is basically kept on one thread and updated multiple times a day.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

lol. A new excuse to add to the list of why Occupy is a fail - it was the trolls.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

You insinuated I was high. Don't play victim with me.

I would wait till summer. Budgets aren't finalized until June statewide. You know that. I don't expect that the homeless population will be resolved or that there will be more people off the streets. In fact, I think that the rent hikes are going to play in the background. Wages are going to remain stagnant or dropping.

What you call the do good acts here and there are actually OWS aligned with other groups in the community. Rallying around a common cause. This demonstrates that they are inclusive and are willing to work with others. You cannot have it both ways.

So, while you laugh or ridicule Farms in the Sky, you do so with the knowledge that you have access to a grocery store and can afford the food prices. Those people ARE we the people. So, they are working towards as many solutions that they can actively pursue.

The message is the same. They all have a root cause.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

I didn't say it was growing, crack head. I said that it is not declining.

I said to look at what is going on at the local levels.

You just keep backing the trolls, April. Keep backing them and fearmongering. That is about all you're good for.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

ok Name-caller Girl. It is remaining stagnant at very low levels, much lower levels than the support it had a few months ago. How's that?

And I further contend that those numbers, or even anything remotely close to those number, will not come back. Unless this movement makes major changes in structure and form. Or at least gets a focused messaged of one or a few key realistic achievable goals.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

You have said it for quite awhile because you prefer fear-mongering.

The evidence is clear. http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1906573/Atlanta./Occupy.Atlanta.and.Union.Reps.Protest.AT.and.T.Layoffs




So, why don't you explore other occupations. Hell, Occupy Atlanta managed to keep open a homeless shelter that they have been trying to take over for years.

Considering the fact they are trying to get food to the people in places where grocery stores have vacated in an effort to keep food on the table, I wouldn't laugh. The point is that there are efforts to bring resources to the people in the midst of a crisis with austerity measures being shoved down their throats.

Them's the facts.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Oh my gosh this is ridiculous. The one article is about how Occupy stopped one bank foreclosure! One! OMG!! That's the proof that this movement is growing and successful?! Are you on drugs?

The other article is an event attended by Tea Party, Republicans and Democrats, and almost, a side note - Occupy. Again, silliness. Says nothing of how Occupy is growing.

The other - 30 protesters in Atlanta. 30. Really?! A major US city, one of Occupy Atlanta's major events. 30 people. Again, says nothing to me that Occupy is growing.

I'm not even bothering to read the last article only to ridicule it as well. It's getting embarrassing.

A few small do goody things here and there is not evidence that the movement is growing. Yes, the movement is still doing some small do goody stuff. That's wonderful. But the fact remains, support is falling off. At best, it might remain at these levels today.

Look, I like you. You post some good informative stuff about Republicans and their destructive policies. You should stick ot that. You're really good at it.

[-] -3 points by KochRocks (-70) 9 years ago

OWS is fucked, get over it already

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

It's the same reason. You have heard it before. You denied it then and you do the same now. It isn't a surprise.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

lol. I say support for OWS is falling off the cliff, with only a handful of people at the GA's (read other Occupy forums and Minutes), and you give me sky farms! And I have no credibility?! That's some bizarre logic. Too funny.

I think you're right. It is the trolls! Wow. Thras really got to you didn't he? So much so that you make absolutely no sense. Sky farms!! lol.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

You always say that support is falling off the cliff. The problem is that it isn't. You have no credibility simply because of your attitudes, posts and defense of trolls. In short, you look like shit April.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I've said for quite a while that because of OWS methods and structure that it would lose support.

It's not very smart to refuse to acknowledge the factual and obvious. There is factual evidence that support is dropping. Read Occupy Minutes and forums. The evidence is clear. One example - in the past when there were hundreds or dozens of people at GA's, now there are 10 or a handful. Go to the Minutes of the NYCGA or any other city and see the facts.

I don't really care what you want to believe. But stop denying the facts with me when you have no evidence to the contrary. Except sky farms.

For all I care you can run rampant all over the board speading this untruth. OWS is growing! OWS is growing! Maybe if you say it enough times it will be like a self fulfilling prophecy and you can make it come true! Go crazy! Just add it in with your Koch Bros. stuff (which I happen to appreaciate by the way).

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

You can't blame it on trolls. There's very few supporters on the ground. Even in major cities, it's down to a handful of the same people at the GAs. There is major infighting. Going in circles with themselves with undecision making.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Yes. You can blame it on trolls. We are all very aware of your support for the trolls, April.

But, yeah, it's all going downhill. Not.


[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Wow, you're right! Silly me. I had no idea about those sky farms. That just changes everything.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The rooftop farming thing actually illustrates what I've been saying. What does rooftop farming have to do with Wall Street? A few days after Occupy Wall Street began, it started to become a cornucopia of every possible liberal cause, instead of being focused on one thing. Now it's everything -- and nothing.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

The only reason that you have no idea what is going on is because you spend all of your time antagonizing situations, exhibiting faux rage and defending trolls.

You don't have any credibility.

[-] 0 points by rayl (1007) 9 years ago

we'll just have to wait till spring now, won't we. ; )

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

It's spring in Miami. What does that have to do with anything?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 9 years ago


[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23474) 9 years ago

Why don't you compare OWS results with Tea Party website results? We're way more popular than they are.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

About the same actually:



The difference is that the Tea Party focused on translating that awareness into making government more responsive to their concerns. Whereas Occupy has spent its awareness capital on ... not much really.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

All else being equal, Occupy would come out ahead for coining the terms 99%, 1% and to a lesser extent, occupy, into the lexicon.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

New words are more significant than actually making government more responsive to your concerns?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

the Tea Party latched on the the democratic backlash in 2010

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Hard to see how that could be if the Tea Party dates back to at least February of 2009.

But not matter what they latched onto, they accomplished something. The clock is ticking and I'm still waiting to see if Occupy will ever accomplish anything. The incessant "(R)epelican't" slurs around here about Republicans are ample evidence that "the 99%" is just a word and not something that Occupy really stands for, because about half of the 99% are Republicans. So how is coining a disingenuous phrase more of an accomplishment than the substantial political accomplishments of the Tea Party?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

what are the political accomplishment of the Tea Party ?

I didn't see government really change

what did I miss ?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You missed the entire debate about raising the debt ceiling, apparently. That used to be routine, now it's a political liability. You also missed the debate over unemployment insurance, and the federal budget. The Tea Party has been laser-focused on debt, while Occupy has been shotgun-unfocused on everything and nothing. Occupy has become a meeting place for liberals touting every liberal pet cause, not a unifying phenomenon that represents the interests of the 99%. Occupy actively ostracizes about half of the 99% with the "(R)epelican't" slurs. The only way for a Republican to participate in Occupy is to become a Democrat first. And then to become an extremist activist.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I remember debt ceiling debates since I was in highschool in the 80s

possibly since WW1 when the government started borrowing for wars


I did miss the debate over unemployment insurance

what was that about?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

By this stage in their "development", the teabaggers were already bought out by the Kochs, and made a part of that propaganda machine.

They are most successful at pushing through much of what was on the (R)epelican't menu anyway. Plus they add to the (R)epelican't legislative blockade.

Some, who claim to be part of the original TEA movement have openly lamented their movement being completely highjacked.

To that end, I think coining terms is very important to maintaining Occupies vision and chances for longevity.

The original tea party, for all intents...............is over.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Before the Tea Party, the Republican Party was hijacking Congress over Terri Schaivo. Now, the Tea Party is successfully pressuring Republicans in Congress to do some pretty crazy things in the name of their number one concern: debt. They succeeded in drawing attention to the unemployment insurance system that hasn't changed since the 1930s. They succeeded in transforming the issue of raising the debt ceiling from a routine practice to a major political hot potato. If you think that the Tea Party hasn't successfully made government more responsive to their concerns or that they're "over" then you must not pay attention to the news.

Occupy, on the other hand, has turned out to be the opposite. Whiny, disorganized, incoherent, ineffective, focused on clashing with law enforcement instead of participating in democracy.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

All of which, as I just told you, are (R)epelican't issues in the first place.

What have they really done that wasn't?

I think you misunderstand the theater of government.

What was once the Tea Party, became (R)epelican'ts of the worst sort.

Do you want, or expect something similar for Occupy?

Truly changing the conversation, will have a more lasting effect.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Has it occurred to you that "(R)epelican't" is a word that alienates a significant percentage of "the 99%"? How does that kind of divisive language advance any cause? Is Occupy only going to represent the small fraction of the 99% who are liberal extremists?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I will believe you, when I hear you speak out against the likes of FLAKESnews, or "pundits" like Limbaugh, who go to great lengths, in using all sorts of derogatory terms, for anything that's the least bit "liberal".

Until then, (R)epelican't remains an accurate and mild descriptive.

When, or should I say if, they return to real Republican values, would be another way to get me to stop using the term.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I don't watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh and I feel no need to apologize for them. Your slurs are divisive and counter productive. They're evidence that "the 99%" is a disingenuous lie, and that people around here are not really interested in unity. This is becoming a haven for liberal extremists, not a unifying movement that will accomplish anything substantial.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I think what you're doing is changing the subject.

You wouldn't cut me one once of slack, even after I explained myself.

So please, why don't you explain, in what way do today's "republicans", resemble Republicans of the past, like Eisenhower?.

Truth is......they don't. So let's at least admit, that they are not Republicans at all.

What term would you suggest for them?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

How is it that a group that supposedly represents the entire 99% refers to half of the 99% as "them"? You don't see the problem there?

Have you not been called out on this before? Is that possibly because all of the Republicans have gotten bored and quit paying attention?

It really is time for Occupy to stop using the "99%" slogan. It's a lie. Occupy is actively hostile to Republicans, and to conservatives in general. Occupy only represents the left-leaning portion of the 99%. Occupy has become divisive, not unifying. (If it was ever unifying.)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

We had this thing a long time ago called the revolution.

The few fought for the 99%, even though most wanted no part of it.

I guess you should watch some FLAKESnews and listen to a little Limbaugh, so you can understand where I'm coming from.

Aside from the fact that you seem to think there have been NO changes in the party since the time of Eisenhower, I am at a loss for how else to explain it to you. I don't think there is anything but a cosmetic resemblance.

I can not in good faith think of them as Republicans.

So I ask you once more. What should I call them?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

"Them", again. This is pointless. Occupy does not represent the 99%. Occupy is a rallying flag for liberal activists.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I'm sure there were those among the colonists that felt the same way.

That it was pointless for liberals to stand up to king George and his corporations.

Yet the few did stand up against "conservatism" for all of us, even those that felt they had no truck with the king, and those that thought it was a good thing to buy product from the East India Trading Corporation(sic).

One last time, and I'll choke on the word just for you, what do I call a republican that is no longer a republican?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23474) 9 years ago

Okay, but the "trends" don't show how very very much more traffic and "links in" we have on this website than any tea party website, or other OWS website, for that matter. I posted those traffic statistics on your last post that bemoaned of our "low traffic." Not.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Is the goal to have a popular web site? Or is the goal to make our government more responsive to our concerns?

If the goal is to have a popular web site, then every publicly-available metric that I've been able to find indicates that it isn't working.

If the goal is to make our government more responsive to our concerns, then it DEFINITELY isn't working. There are a lot of Tea Party candidates working to make our government more responsive to their concerns. On the Occupy side, there have been a lot of arrests. And Obama symbolically tried to use the "Buffett Rule" in his unrealistic tax-and-spend budget.

Meanwhile, the GOP is laughing at everybody while they use the democratic system against people who don't know how to effectively play the game.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23474) 9 years ago

Okay, well at least I understand you better. Why don't you post about that then?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I spent months posting about that. It's way too late now. The people who thought that Occupy would be better off if it didn't focus on concrete objectives have prevailed, and now it's too late to accomplish anything.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23474) 9 years ago

Sorry you feel that way. I don't.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Looks like OWS is the new 1%! LOL

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

looks like google can't properly label axises and data presentation