Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: This is what OWS has come to...haha

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 16, 2011, 1:37 p.m. EST by getajoblosers (65)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Basically, OWS now exists for the sole purpose of defending its right to exist. This is the perception of you across the country. Very diluted, confused, and purposeless.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

This post obviously not written by Frank Lutz, who is scared to death of Occupy. The actions of our politicians tell a different story about the perception of Occupy, don't they. By the way, 2/3 of American still favor raising taxes on millionaires, thanks to Occupy. Throw whatever garbage insults you want after I leave this comment, it will not matter. The greater majority of people in this country do not share your extremely biased view of the movement.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

The democraps "caved in" on that one.

And by "caved in" I meant supported not raising taxes on the wealthy by 100% margin.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Yes, I heard that on the news yesterday. It seems like the hope and change crap, is more of the hope, and less of the change.

[-] 0 points by OLLAG (84) 10 years ago

Thanks to occupy? that is a false statistic. 2/3 is incorrect/.

I hope you like the laptop you are using...because we all know you stole it. :-)

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

You're very opinionated, but quite lacking in any statistics to back up you borish opinions.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

The Koch Brothers think tanks seem to be spamming this forum with claims OWS is "purposeless". It only make YOU GUYS look like idiots, you certainly don't let facts derail your agenda.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

I wish to hell that they would at least hire people that were semi-intelligent.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I think its because this is a "resistance" movement. And resistance kind of goes hand in hand with persistence. So OWS ptb will persistently pursue their agenda. Which basically is purposeless. OWS "we don't need politicians".

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Well I liked that politician that proposed the occupy amendment. But other than that. :\

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Key word - "proposed". I "propose" this movement get some effective leadership, organization and a thoughtful planned out agenda for ending government corruption. And a little flowers and sunshine wouldn't hurt either. : )

[-] 2 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 10 years ago

Occupy WallSt means the enemy is WallSt. Very simple.

[-] -1 points by sanityrules (1) 10 years ago

That is why you are losing ubercaput. The enemy is government and more specifically this present administration and the liberal agenda. It only exists to keep people in need. If people were successful and doing well Democrats would cease to be needed they would cease to exist.

[-] 3 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 10 years ago

Targeting the present Government is a "red herring" strategy. It is what WallSt created the T for.

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 10 years ago

Ubercaput isn't losing. He understands who the enemy is, a prerequisite of victory. You, sanityrules, have been eating the gruel again, haven't you? remember, we talked about the gruel. You really can't continue to give in to your addiction and hope to come into the light.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

This is a tread to organize forum Topics by category

Please do not respond to posts here. Follow the link to the thread and post there.

I've been collecting and organizing thread heads. Each thread head post has a link to thread on this forum so some threads have been ordered and can be brought back up.

The Protest

The Issues


general catch all



[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 10 years ago

48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.

57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be "low income" or impoverished.

77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.

There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 10 years ago

lol personal opinion, not backed up by anything, put across as facts - what a joke.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

Negative campaigning will not work here. You have no idea who your talking to. You tried and tried, but you just can't kill this.. Frustrating yes? Well that is because you are a dumbass. You are using the wrong tactic. Let me tell you a little something about the leaders of this movement. This is a group of very independent people, who do not care what other's think. These are not people likely to jump on the next bandwagon, because independent people do whatever the hell they damn well please. The more you slander OWS, the harder they will dig their heels in, the deeper this thing will go.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I thought there were no leaders in this movement? Please, tell us more.

Who are the leaders? What is the right tactic to talk to them? Can these "independent" leaders accept constructive criticism in order the make the movement better?

What is the "leaders" agenda? Maybe if we had a better understanding of that we would be able to find more common ground to work together on. Instead of so many people being frustrated.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

We are all leaders. No?

How do you talk to them? Be inspired and you will be inspiring. Be interested and you will be interesting. Be understanding and you will be understood. This is how people communicate when they are not trying to clobber each other with the incessant need to be right.

In my experience, every one handles constructive criticism differently. I would go with the "golden rule" on this one. How would you prefer to receive constructive criticism? That is how you should give it.

Ah, what's on the agenda? So much to do .. so little time. Are you sure you are looking for the agenda, do you know how boring those can be? Perhaps you would prefer the big picture?

Agenda type people will have a hard time communicating with big picture type people and vice versa, in my experience. But communication is the key. It does not require that everyone have the same opinions. Nor, even some common ground. Just a willingness on both sides to be open to another human being.

[-] 1 points by dawnofthededad (1) 10 years ago

It's like when the witch got doused with water in the Wizard of Oz, melting down to nothing, freeing the people being held in their chains.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

come the spring you are gonna be thinking to yourself damn where did all these millions of people come from and what are they protesting. idiot.

[-] 0 points by marga (82) 10 years ago

Oh pfft. as if you count for anything.

[-] 0 points by randart (498) 10 years ago

Are you Frank Luntz?

[-] -2 points by survivor514 (65) 10 years ago

The Occupy Wall Street movement has likewise had the opposite effect of what its anarcho-socialist hygiene-challenged spoiled middle-class kids intended. When you see "protesters" defecating on a police car or an American flag, instigating violence, and generally being incoherent, the ordinary American is likely to see those people as a greater threat than a bunch of villainized bankers could ever be. Again, when the messenger is so utterly without credibility, the internalized message among the public is likely to be the opposite of what the preachers of radicalism offer.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Clearly more bad marketing. I said the same in another post. But it's like spitting in the wind here.


I don't think the anarchists and/or radicals have much to offer. The public is getting the right message. There's no other message to get from anarchy but anarchy. They've successfully demonstrated this. Loud and clear.

Sadly, some important legit messages like ending the corruption of government is just lost in the anarchy.

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 10 years ago

April, you are using a bastardized understanding of anarchy. To come to the light, follow this link, and read the SECOND paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I don't think anarchy is neccessarily violent. I don't think it needs to be disorderly or chaotic either. I do think true anarchy is impossible to achieve (leaderless) and I think non-hiearchical structures are ineffective and take an extra-ordinary amount of time and effort to maintain. On any large scale. And I think Direct Democracy is a dangerous concept.

I think anarchy can be used to create a perfectly beautiful and lovely society in theory. Maybe even actually work on a small limited scale (not completely leaderless).

But I do think this movement is very disorganized. And I don't think it is leaderless. I think there are leaders, and its not the protesters. I think there are leaders behind the scenes guideing the movement towards their own agenda. Cleverly using direct democracy as their manipulative tool. The very thing they claim empowers others, is really the tool they use to protect and further their own agenda.



But please, help me see the light! Which paragraph do you want me to read? Give me the first few words of the paragraph.

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 10 years ago

OK ... here is the paragraph ... Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples[5], that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

If, by Direct Democracy, you mean a true democracy, I don't know that I would characterize it so much as dangerous but rather prone to failure.

The movement may seem disorganized, but I don't think it is. I don't believe it is leaderless either but from the outside, it appears leaderless. I believe that is very intentional. Difficult to silence a non-existent leader, wouldn't you agree?

There are so many grievances needing to be addressed, that to the outsider, these multiple "voices" may resonate with no apparent perceptible clarity. I agree with you that there is some leadership in there somewhere. My fear, as you so aptly illustrate, is the potential of the movement being hi-jacked.

Back to democracy, I am about to enter corporations' definition of "senior". With that said, I must say I do not understand a linear or democratic business model. I own a small business and there must be a final authority or one is left with chaos. If OWS means the final authority must listen to all in making decisions, I would agree. This is wisdom in the counsel of many.

I liked your links.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

If you liked those links, you might find these interesting as well.

I have to run for now, but you make interesting points. I'll get back to you later on.



[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 10 years ago

Hmmm, I see survivor514 has also been eating the gruel, too. We see you as the threat and you too shall be left behind. Enjoy the quiet.