Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What Mistakes has Occupy made so far?

Posted 2 years ago on May 3, 2012, 4:53 p.m. EST by Endgame (535)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Mistakes:

  • Not making Getting Outside Money Out of Politics its core message and goal.

  • Wasting a lot of time on meaningless goals (Occupy Sotheby's over a damn painting. Occupying the harbor..wtf?!)

  • Not evolving the movement to form an easy to understand core message that ties all the legitimate complaints and problems together.

  • Not making Occupy's message more Coherent. More coherency means making it easier for others to get on board with the movement instead of being turned off by it.

  • Weeding out the crazies that try to force themselves into the movement while causing damage to businesses and forcing unnecessary clashes with the police that play right into the hands of the entities that want to see the movement fail. In contrast some of the HONORABLE nonviolent clashes with the police involve the protesting of high education costs and fraudulent Foreclosure Evictions)

  • Needs better structure. Not in the traditional sense. But being so unstructured allows for crazies to come in and taint the entire perception of the movement.

Post some of your opinions on the mistakes OWS has made so far.

179 Comments

179 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

OWS is doing just fine. It ain't perfect (but to quote Voltaire, "perfect is the enemy of good" ... as in, if you're waiting for perfection, then you'll be waiting till you die).

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Very fine, thank you francis.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im not saying the movement needs to be "perfect". It needs to be aware of its past and current mistakes and evolve. You're kidding yourself if you think OWS is just fine.

It feels like to many of us are on the verge of living in a bubble...

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

Nope, it's the rest of America living in a dream ... :)

[-] -2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

But if this movement refuses to evolve do you really think Occupy can be what wakes them up? I don't.

It can be and it SHOULD be but as things are going now it feels like the movement is filled with too many people that are just to proud of themselves for the little accomplishments they've made so far. And that pride is blinding them to see that without the ability to look inward and acknowledge and fix their own flaws the movement will more than likely die before accomplishing anything of long lasting substance.

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

Where do you get this idea from? I mean, have you met any of these people? Have you been to a protest? What exactly are you basing this opinion on?

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I have been to rallies and have met many Occupiers. But the fact that you can't see that there are problems with Occupy says alot.

Public opinion on Occupy continues to go down. When I talk to other people to try to get them involved most of them think that its just about a bunch of young people having fun. Yes they think some of their complaints are legitimate but then they see scenes like what happened with Occupy the Harbor. Or they see the Occupiers talk about vague issues. So when they due tune in for a stint Occupy does not appeal to them.

I have to ask, have you been to a rally? Do you really think that the momentum is on Occupy's side right now or for the last few months? Does Occupy plan on getting into the political process to cause real change or do we continue with the pompous attitude of "we aren't political but we complain about all things political"?

And clashing with the police in nonviolent protests over legitimate things like fraudulent foreclosures, high cost of education, women's right, etc that is something people can latch onto. Its honorable. But all of the clashes where its about taking up space at a harbor or breaking business windows is just ridiculous and it turns ALOT of people off.

Im really starting to see examples of a Occupy bubble where some of the people inside the movement don't even notice that its lack of message and structure is destroying its legitimacy for long term change.

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

Yes, I've been to rallies, there were tens of thousands of people in NYC alone (for May Day, just two days ago), and thousands in numerous cities throughout the world, so I see none of what you're talking about. May Day was the biggest rally OWS ever had (so how can they be faltering)?

OWS is growing every day, and that (at this stage) is a mark of success. Again, OWS isn't perfect, but it's message has been staunchly nonviolent. That some idiots gravitate to these events and do stupid shit, I mean, what do you possibly think we can do about that? The best we can do is keep saying what we've been saying, OWS is nonviolent, we completely reject violence, and anyone who is violent does not stand for what we stand for, and therefore cannot possibly be considered representative of OWS. This goes for property violence, physical violence, etc.

Some people will grab whatever they can to besmirch OWS, and there's little we can do to prevent that. OWS is a nonviolent movement, it shapes itself after people like Gandhi, but it cannot exert control over other people who may be unstable (and it would be absurd to expect us to try).

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Was that a symbol of it growing or just a fact that most of the people that have at one time or another been involved with Occupy show up in the same area at the same time?

So I guess we just throw the opinion polls out since they don't matter. I guess we can just focus on New York and not pay attention to the state of the Occupy movement across this country and how it feels depleted. You sir are in a bubble. Step out of it and take a real look at the direction this movement is going.

No one is denying that Occupy has achieved the goal of changing the national discussion from Cuts to growth and dealing with Income Inequality. But it feels like Occupy sees that and thinks its already won. The truth is that it is far from winning.

I got an idea, why don't we Occupy Burger King? Im sure they are doing something wrong, so lets waist time with that.

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

Sure, opinion polls conducted by the media will be my source of enlightenment .... ummm, duh!

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Have fun in your bubble. I just hope there aren't tons of people in Occupy like you because if there are the movement is done for.

If you're trying to say that our mainstream media sucks at covering politics and are apart of the problem, I absolutely agree with that part of the point. But to just poo poo away polls that you disagree with is just self destructive and a show of being in denial.

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

Polls reflect the culture we have today, which brought us all the problems we have today.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im not following your logic. You're stating the obvious but I don't see how pointing that out proves that Occupy should ignore ALL polls on itself.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Sorry but stop making up the facts. There were only about 300.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP2d973c1ff2ba43fc8d5472a17af5fa43.html

This is why the movement is dieing, you people keep making shit up and when you are exposed for the liers you are you go silent.

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

Can't spell, can't read (the article you yourself posted), incoherent speech pattern .... are you high?

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Hundreds not 10k like you posted.

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

doubt that

even San Diego had around 100

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Respont to the post moron, not my spelling ability.

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

So we're back to your lack of reading comprehension skills (see post above, think about it for a while, give that thing between your ears some time to absorb it before responding in haste)?

Okay, can't help myself ... is spelling "respond" properly really all that difficult?

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Guess that is the best you can do.

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

oooooo .... I'm impressed (did you start typing it in Word before you posted it) :)

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

ad hominem is hard to spell

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

I like to think of it as outright mockery :) ... but seriously, conservatism doesn't deserve anymore than constant beration. You know our society is fucked up when anti-intellectualism and tribalism has its own advocacy group (and a political party at that).

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

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

Just because you suck up all the RupertRush juice you can get, doesn't mean other do the same.

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

mmmm, love me some kook aid, I wonder how grey goose & koolaid would taste?

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

You sir are an asshole and the reason occupy is losing support everyday. a quote from the article. "Hundreds marked May Day on Tuesday with protests, marches and rallies. Police said Wednesday that more than 50 people were arrested." Where were the 10k you professed to see.

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

Urrrrr, I feel well informed and enlightened now that I've read a loose (unqualified) statement made in the preamble of a WSJ article? I mean, duh.

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

link

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That is why we must be coalition builders. Who are our natural allies in this struggle? Well we can see THAT pretty clearly. All those who stand for justice and who stand against the 1%. Who are those groups? Well, we must use our own judgement, however I will give a stab at it:

  1. Unions.
  2. Left wing pressure groups such as moveon.org, avaz.org, change.org, etc, etc.
  3. Minorities.
  4. The middle class.
  5. The poor.
  6. The left wing of the Democratic Party.
  7. Environmental Groups.
  8. Those in foreign countries who support our vision.
  9. Disenchanted corporate employees.
  10. Disenchanted people in the media.
  11. All those being forclosed upon.
  12. All those threatened with forclosure.
  13. All those sick of the attack on public schools.
  14. All those lacking health insurance, or with inadequate health insurence.
  15. All of the unemployed.
  16. All those with part time, poorly paid employment.
  17. College students up to their neck in debt.
  18. College graduates who can't find a job in their field.
  19. Teachers who are treated like the scum of society because they want to produce more educated generations.
  20. All those forced into multiple deployments in the 1%s wars.
  21. All those vetarans who come home and can't find a job.
  22. All those veterans who have injuries and aren't getting treatment.
  23. All those veterans who are homeless.
  24. All those who know that charter schools are just a way of destroying real education.
  25. Everyone who has a conscience.

I could go on and on with this list, but this seems good to start with.

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

I think this list pretty much describes who OWS has been reaching out to, but we can always do better I suppose.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Oh yes, that what we must try to do.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Occupy also really needs to specify when it talks about the 1%. Lumping all 1%ers in the same category is bad for the movement. In fact Occupy needs to work on getting more people from the 1%. And no im not talking about the crooks and Paul Ryan types. I think when Occupy talks about the 2% clarifying that the movement is actually talking about corrupt corporations, Wall Street CEO's, politicians, etc, is extremely important.

Making this clarification that its about fixing the system and not going after EVERY 1%er is important. Doing this I believe will also bring in certain 1%ers into Occupy that want real positive change too.

Its not about demonizing people but glaring a spotlight on the corrupt system and the portion of the 1% that work in the background to keep the system as is.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I agree with you completely. It's not about the 1%. Even that is misleading, and that's the really amazing thing. What we are really talking about here is a VERY SMALL group of people with a hegemonist agenda. I think we must make that very clear.

It is up to us to make our views specific, and this is definately one of those views that it is very important.

[-] 3 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Yep. But judging from some of the comments here I think there are a lot of Occupiers that lack the ability to look at the movement and admit that there are flaws. And until the majority of the movement admit there are flaws they won't be able to fix them.

I hope im wrong and that the movement evolves.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think it's all about consciousness building, but whenever you have a genuine grass roots movement it will be composed of people with varying opinions. That just goes with the territory, and really we mustn't exclude anyone from this movement who's views are essetially in line with ours, because the power of this movement is in the numbers of people involved.

The '1%' have the money, we need the numbers.

We need to be coalition builders, not excluders.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Agreed. The irony is that the ones that should be excluded(the few Anarchists that are there simply to cause trouble that force themselves into protests) are not excluded.

I concur that people with various views should not be excluded in any form(as long as they are non-violent). But in contrast you can't have people that refuse to listen to others from within the movement that suggest fixing the flaws of the movement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I agree that self-critisism is both necessary and good, and also completely about non-violence. I think we have made it explicityly clear that this movement is comimtted to non-violence, and so anyone who engaes in it is not a part of the movement. As a leaderless movement it's hard to know any other way of dealing with the matter.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

And thats the problem with not having better structure. You get incidents that make the whole movement look bad simply because a few idiots that don't represent what Occupy is truly about get to come in and cause damage. Or when that horrible "Occupy spokesperson" went on that idiot Hannity's show and made the movement look really bad. Even if it is Faux News, this movement needs to have enough respect for itself and have a structure set up where stuff like that is less likely to happen.

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

There is a strategical reason for the lack of structure. It avoids putting generals and officers in command. A common tactic to take the fight out of an army is to kill the generals and officers. Better to have Faux News take out some pawn, than a general or an officer, which might cause irreparable damage.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

JadedCitizen, You don't think situations like yesterday when some random "occupy spokesman" having that Hannity interview doesn't do damage? Or the Anarchists coming in and giving the movement a bad name doesn't damage it? All of these missteps accumulates and does ends up doing irreparable damage anyway.

Its not about having generals and officers. In fact im advocating for a constant revolving door of articulate and passionate Occupy spokesmen. Thats why i've said multiple times in this thread(in different words) that "having structure doesn't mean you have to have structure in the traditional sense".

The choice shouldn't just be we either have traditional structure(like an army) OR no structure at all. This movement was started with creativity so you mean to tell me that this movement can't become more structured in an unconventional and creative way? I absolutely think they can. And to be honest I think we must.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Well, I'm not sure that any structure can prevent people from doing these kinds of things, any more than any amount of police or military control can really prevent terrorism. These things arise out of free will, which is not something that ultimately cannot be controlled.

That is a misconception that gives rise to a police state. The only way individuals can "control" the behavior of other individuals is through example. If we hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards more people will be drawn to our cause, but we can't control every person in the world, and I don't think we want to.

[-] 3 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

No I think you're taking the concept of more structure a little to far...

If Occupy had more structure where the spokesmen that were voted into the positions by the Occupy movement itself; they could set up something to where a set amount of people appear as official tv spokesmen. There would be a way where the media could get in touch with that portion of the movement and there it could be decided who speaks for the movement.

And if it is found out that a show like Hannity on Faux News didn't even go through the proper channels to get a REAL Occupy representative then it would all completely backfire on him. But because there is no structure creeps like Hannity gets to get away with things like this. When there is violence by a few fringe members, who is out there 1st thing to say they aren't with us and to weed out those guy? No one.

This isn't about a police state. Nothing even close. Its not even about controlling everyone. Its about having enough respect for the movement to not let its name get dragged in the dirt without proper rebuttal. Occupy needs to realize that PR is an important part of the movement. If you have no say in that you give that power away to others to destroy it.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Ah I see, you have a very valid point here. This issue was disgussed in depth before on this forum, and it seems it was never resolved. No harm in taking another stab at it:)

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Wish I saw that thread while it was active. I might need to start that discussion back up. Thanks.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thank you, I think the central issue you are raising here is very important and that is, I think, that we need to focus now on the MEANS of getting from where we are to where we want to be.

I have stressed this recently. I think those of us here with straightforward intentions have pretty clear agreement on what we want to see achieved, and therefore the question now is how do we achieve it? There is much thought needed on this issue and it is good to have those onboard who are willing to do this admittedly challenging work (and suffer the inevitable abuse for doing it.) LOL!

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

That makes a lot of sense.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Thanks.

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

Fear that it is going too far in teh #2 and #6 direction is why the numbers are down.

[-] -3 points by istina (-11) 2 years ago

If there's anyway to shoehorn Bushbama and the rest of the corporate puppets in the Democratic Party into the dialogue, you'll find it. Won't you, GypsyClown?

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

istina No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

Information

Joined May 4, 2012


I love it when fucktwits talk a good game but don't have the balls to stick with one username.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I really like your succinct way of summing things up:)

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

gypsyclown? Thats offensive. The democrats have made profound mistakes and have been bought off. but the Dems are hated by the big corp overlords. repubs are loved by them. Dems can be made to serve the 99%. repubs are too far gone. support ows! Vote out big corp lovin republicans!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

ThanksVQkag, I like your style.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Your very welcome.

[-] -3 points by istina (-11) 2 years ago

"the Dems are hated by the big corp overlords"

And in what parallel universe might that be true? Go here to get a glimpse at the billions of corporate dollars flowing into the coffers of Bushbama and the rest of the corporate-owned Demopublicans:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://influenceexplorer.com/

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Dems are for cap n trade, Alt energy, ending big oil subsidies, improv student debt, gay marriage, immigration, womens rights, Repubs are not. Support OWS. Vote out big oil lovin politicians

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

The above message was brought to you by a "PR firm" http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com/

[Removed]

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

You pay and then he posts whatever you want him to say. Especially, if you need to spread a shit load of disinformation around.

[-] -2 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Aw Dude, OWS is on the verge of failure; and I’m trying to be objective about it. OWS has alienated large portions of the public with its antics. Be realistic, unless OWS make some dramatic changes in its tactics it won't last much longer

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

"Aw Dude . . ." I recongnize that voice, the voice of at least a dozen supposed different people on this forum at one time or another, so please keep starting every comment with "Aw Dude . . ." and we will know that we need to read no further.

That's just how good old gramps talked. . . "Aw Dude . . ." Man you guys are just sad.

[-] 3 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

OWS made the great mistake of being an emotional mob instead of a logical movement.

When you question something logically and receive emotionally charged responses most of the time, it is an early indication of impending failure.

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

andrea potts has some opinions on occupy mistakes

King of the Mountain

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

Sounds like the conservo-trolls are getting nervous.

[-] 2 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you accusing me of being such a thing, or are you trying to tell me something related to what I said? Or is it just a non-sequitir, not meant to be taken as a valid response?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Blurring the distinction between the bad 1%ers and the good 1%ers. Occupy Sotheby's is a good example. Refocus the message on the corrupt.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THe issue with Sotheby's is absolutely legitimate. Two days ago it sold a single pastel for over one hundred million dollars. It was far from the only sale of the day. Yet they have shut out their entire staff of art handlers, replacing them with low-paid scabs, because they were in a union that demanded they be paid a living wage.

If that's not a dramatic example of the 1% against the 99%, of the insatiable greed of the moneyed few, no such example exists in the world.

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

that seems unwise as they should have enough money to pay their staff by scale

and still make money

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Precisely.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Ah, I forgot about the art handler thing. You're right. What they did with the art handlers was wrong and should be protested. But the fact that some rich guy wants to overpay for a pastel should not.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The pastel and the buyer were not the issue, Or, rather, it was only one of them.

Sotheby's made over $15 million dollars with that sale ALONE. And it was far from the only one that day. They likely made $50 million on Tuesday alone in profits. And the President of the Board threatened to resign if the company even negotiated with the art handlers. She makes millions upon millions of dollars a year. She is a 0.01%er who would rather quit her very lucrative job rather than allow the people who work for her to make a living wage.

And the issue goes even beyond that. Sotheby's art division itself exists exclusively for the very wealthy. The people who buy art there do so in the belief that they will "own" that art, that somehow by "owning" it, they are the equivalent to the creative people who actually made it. It is sheer fantasy. Great art is rightfully a legacy for the world at large. That is why the artist made it. No one can own it. The most one can do is become its caretaker, its conservator, but the art "belongs" to the world. Ideas, emotions, perceptions, etc. about the human experience (that is what art is) do not "belong" to a buyer. They cannot be bought.. And if it's truly great art, it speaks to humanity at large, not just a few chosen guests in a private living room. This notion that one can own a human spirit by buying it is the very attitude OWS seeks to redress. Attempting to own another's spirit is the ultimate form of greed. OWS exists to redefine that bizarre paradigm, politically, economically, and culturally.

I can think of no more apt protest by OWS than the one at Sotheby's.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Actually, you can't make that kind of blanket statement about collectors, many of them do feel they are merely the caretakers of that object for a brief time. There are as many that love the work for it's beauty as there are the one's who buy it for it's supposed value. Grouping them all together makes as much sense as grouping all OWS supporters together or any group of people, for that matter. I've talked to many people in the antiques world, not all of them are greedy, shallow bastards.

That being said, I do think the art world is full of shit, but my contempt of them has to do with their attitude about art and people in general. I'm differentiating between collectors and dealers here. In the art world, they tell you what is good art and bad. That goes against the very nature of art, which is exclusively in the eye of the beholder, not the guy trying to buy or sell it. But, being a collector myself (not art, I'm a poor person, more like books and '60's toys, things of not much value) I can relate to the desire to own something rare and beautiful. If you don't collect anything you won't understand.

If you want to see how full of shit the art world really is, check out a good documentary called, "Who the F--k is Jackson Pollack?"

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm not talking about all collectors, of course. But I have found it true of most, at least those who collect fine art as opposed to books and antiques. While there is the rare exception most really do feel they can own the art, and that by doing so, it reflects on their own specialness. Most high end collectors don't allow the work they have bought to go on public view. They want it all for themselves. I can't tell you how many Matisses, Klees, Picassos, etc, I saw in private homes not seen by the public in 70 years. There is even one collector I know of who was born legally blind. He can't see the paintings he collects at all. He simply wants to own the pieces.

Unfortunately, I don't need to do to research about how fucked up and corrupt the art world is: I am a painter who lived and worked in New York most of my life, and know that world very well. I knew or have met (and in some cases, studied with) Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol, Rauschenberg, Dan Flavin, Elaine deKooning, Lee Krasner, Reuben Kadish, Jim Dine, Chris Wilmarth, and dozens of others you may have heard of. I can tell you stories about dealers that would turn your hair white, from casting couches to outright theft to pyramid schemes, to the intentional destruction of artist's careers, to pushing heroin, and more. And all this by galleries and select art critics that are world known, and aided by complicit, curators, art schools, etc. Gallery owners are the quintessential 1%. They're shameless hustlers, making enormous sums of money off artists they have conspired (literally) to keep mostly poor and dependent, all the while pretending to be the great benefactors of society. I would sooner trust an ex-con used car salesman.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Ah, your an artist. That explains the passion in your comment. I absolutely despise what I've heard of the fine art world, I have to agree with your assessments. Love the art, highly respect the artists, hate the dealers and self-proclaimed "experts." The rarefied world of Sotheby's and Christie's probably doesn't reflect the attitudes of the collecting world as a whole. My only problem is that we should be careful about blurring the line between the good 1%ers and the bad. We don't have a right to tell the good ones how to spend their money. And the question of making the art available to the public in general is another thing. As you know, there isn't enough wall space in all the museums of the world to display all the fine art that exists. Most, if not all, museums have in storage many times the amount of work they have on display. Sometimes they rotate it, sometimes they lend it out, but the huge majority of works are in warehouses where no one has the pleasure of experiencing them. Which begs the question, where should this art be? In the home of a collector where at least a few people can see them and maybe, upon the collector's death they get donated, or stacked on a shelf in a warehouse in Queens?

And as far as collecting stuff, that's an almost universal condition. I know we're not supposed to be materialistic, but what kid didn't collect baseball cards or comic books? I think it's in our make-up, most of us anyway.

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

yep, FoxNews is doomed to fall

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 2 years ago

hahahaha! In your wildest communist deams!

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

"Blurring the distinction between the bad 1%ers and the good 1%ers."

I absolutely agree with that. I know that Occupy doesn't mean to lump ALL 1%ers in the same category but they have now allowed the entities that are against them to attempt to play the victim. Switching Occupy's meaning of what they are saying to act as if Occupy is about punishing the rich and success. That is NOT what its about but in the beginning Occupy didn't clarify that enough and allowed it to be used against them. But I do see them starting to clarify that part. Better late than never I guess. It has always been about the unfairness of the system and how some at the very top rig it by buying off politicians to screw everyone else over.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah, it's easy to lose the distinction with all the things OWS is rallying against. Easy to lose focus the more time goes on. We definitely have to keep that distinction clear.

[-] 1 points by Insight2 (2) 2 years ago

South Park sums up whole OWS movement.

Stan: So we have enough people now. When do we start taking down the coperations? Hippie#1: Yeah the corperations. Right now they're raping the world for money! Stan: So yeah, where are they? Let's go get 'em. Hippie#2: Right now we're proving we don't need corperations. We don't need money. There's going to be a community were everybody just helps each other. Hippie#1: Yeah, there's going to be like one guy, who like makes bread. And like another guy, that like looks out for other people's saftey. Stan: You mean like a baker and a cop? Hippie#2: No, no no. Can't you guys imagine a place where people, like live together and provide services for each other in exchange for their services? Kyle: Yeah. It's called a town. Hippie#1: You kids just haven't been to college yet. But just you wait. This thing's about to get huge!

[-] 1 points by acanadianman (13) 2 years ago

Not attacking the head of the beast, the federal reserve.

[-] 1 points by acanadianman (13) 2 years ago

A new goal is needed. Occupy the federal reserve and put the monetary system back in the hands of the people rather than a few select private bank families.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I would go a step further but simplify the message even more. Just "Get Outside Money Out of Politics", end the bribery. Do that and the problems with the federal reserve and the banks will be corrected. Because if you end the ability for entities to bribe and pay off politicians and make it illegal, those entities lose their power over the politicians and the people.

[-] 1 points by acanadianman (13) 2 years ago

Because the fed is a privite entity owned by a few famlies the entire nation is owned by those families. By putting the creation of the money supply back in the hands of elected officials and creating a system to properly monitor those officials the power will be back where it belongs, with the masses.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Yes you are correct but my point is, what allows the Federal Reserve to continue to do what they do? Its because they use a corrupt political system to bribe politicians with money. Then those politicians protect them and block any legislation that would fix this problem.

So I don't disagree with you about the problem, I just disagree with on how we can have a legitimate way of fixing it.

[-] 1 points by acanadianman (13) 2 years ago

I think we just agree as I have no concrete opinion on how it can be fixed. A good way I believe would be to eliminate the existing government and give the new one that mandate. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_intro.aspx is a good resource to that end. I would greatly appreciate your view on methods to reach the desired result, and I thank you for time in discussion.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I think advocating to abolish all government as is just unrealistic and unpractical. But I do agree that the Federal Reserve is a huge problem.

But like I mentioned before I think the path to fixing the Federal Reserve problem is to change the rules which allows them or any other entity to pay off and bribe politicians. Getting outside money out of politics will achieve this and pull everyone on an even playing field.

[-] 1 points by acanadianman (13) 2 years ago

Eliminate was a poor word choice. What I ment was simply bring it into the 21st century and hold all leaders accountable for their deeds. The existing structure must be rebuilt in order to accomplish this.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Alright I see what you meant now.

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

elections should be national holidays

those that are getting pinched for money need time to vote

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I agree with that.

Its odd seeing you post something so sensible here in contrast what you just posted in this very thread about Occupy not caring about business losses due to their store glasses getting vandalized during protests due to them being "apathetic"...

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

never said such a thing

good bye

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Wow... You're not only a troll you are a liar.


"MattLHolck said: the people are apathetic

doubt the people cared much one way or the other that the harbor was closed for a day bet some that had jobs were glad for a break from their regimented schedule pretty sure most could care less about big business losses"


People like you are why this movement will fail if Occupy doesn't course correct itself.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by sampfeifer (20) from Issaquah, WA 2 years ago
  1. The Name is bad. Occupy? That is a tactic the movement used. "the 99%" is a much more accurate name.
  2. We need to diversify tactics. Occupying public space is all well and good but many people cannot take the time to do that. We need to post our message on every street corner, we need to somehow centralizes the vision. What does the future we want look like? After our membership is large enough we need to begin boycotting, we need to prove to the corporations and politicians that we have authority over them.
  3. We need a symbol, one symbol that everyone can rally around.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 2 years ago

While the name could probably be better, changing it to "the 99%" is a horrible idea. If you truly represented the 99%, then your numbers would be far greater, you wouldn't demonize people/groups that have similar (but not identical) ideals (such as the Tea Party). 99% would include a good percentage of Republicans, yet there are plenty of people in these forums that blame all Republicans.

OWS doesn't represent the 99%, because there are plenty of people out there (myself included) that don't believe in what OWS is doing.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"there are plenty of people out there (myself included) that don't believe in what OWS is doing."

Then why are you here in OWS's support site? Did you get lost on your way to the Heritage Foundation picnic?

[-] -1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 2 years ago

Free Will? Freedom of Speech?

Obviously there was something about the forums, and the message in the forums that piqued my interest enough to actually sign up, and post, at a website of a cause that I do not support.

My purpose here is to perhaps try to get a better idea of what OWS's message is, and what their goals are. Of course, it seems that everyone has differing opinions, and nobody can agree on a set of solutions. And occasionally, when someone says something that doesn't make sense (either literally, or figuratively), I ask them to further explain what they mean, and question how what they said will actually fix anything.

I'm trying not to be perceived as a troll, and try to refrain from personal attacks (even though that hasn't always been reciprocated), to try to maintain a serious discussion.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You have certainly engaged in personal attacks. Your purpose here appears to be to tear down and destroy. you appear to be a mouthpiece for the criminals who crashed the world economy, taken control of our government and prey on hard working american families. Support ows. Vote out anti ows republicans!

[-] -1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 2 years ago

Please share with me what you think was a personal attack.

So just because I question certain aspects, or suggestions of some of OWS members, I'm suddenly a "mouthpiece" for "criminals who crashed the world economy, taken control of our government...(etc)?" ...There's not a chance that I might be from one of those hard-working American families?

There is plenty of disagreement between OWS supporters themselves on what directions/changes/goals/etc that OWS should make, yet they don't get the similar treatment.

By the way, you can quit with the "Support ows. Vote out anti ows republicans!" I, like you (hopefully), will vote for whom I think will be best for the country. I don't need you posting the same thing in every post to me to try to get me to blindly follow your opinions. And if you think voting out "anti ows Republicans" will fix things, I think you're missing the point. There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't all start with an "R."

Do you know who was the #1 recipient of Wall Street money was during the 2008 election? Here's a hint: It wasn't a Republican.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think it will be very hard to maintain a non-troll status with the username you have chosen.

Clearly, you have satisfied your curiosity and have concluded that you don't, in fact, believe in what OWS is doing.

OWS is a decidedly, intentionally leftist movement. It categorically rejects virtually every single position of the Republican Party. Indeed, it generally rejects the Democratic party as well for being much too conservative, too tied to the current system. It is, at its core, a Political Anarchist movement. If anything, it seeks to replace the entire system and sees itself as beginning the process of discovering what a Post Capitalist society will look like. It founders, (especially David Graeber) believe that capitalism itself is reaching the end of its life, and sees OWS as an process in which that system's replacement will be worked out. It claims to have no answers, but only a process whereby solutions may eventually be arrived at. That's one reason you don't find definitive solutions here. http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-streets-anarchist-roots/#comments

What you see on this site is generally not the core of OWS, but many supporters. That is why you see so many different points of view, from entirely a-political to openly hostile of all politicians, to democratic liberal reformers. Other than the trolls and a few scattered confused individuals, none support the Tea Party, and for good reason. And absolutely none but the trolls support the Republican Party. In terms of the former, they are generally tax protesters, upholding the rights of the very wealthy to continue to exploit the nation. As OWS is not about killing the health care bill or decreasing taxes, but rather eliminating inequality, and viewing capitalism itself as the corrupting force, the only thing the two have in common is anger at the current state of the system. But they see the opposite in terms of where the problem lies. The Tea Party believes in unfettered, unregulated capitalism; one that has no responsibilities to the poor and disenfranchised. OWS is entirely about restoring those same poor and disenfranchised to their rightful place at the table, socially, economically and politically. In terms of opposing the Republican Party, the reasons should be obvious. Beyond simply the criminal invasion of Iraq and, to almost the same extent, Afghanistan, the issue of crony capitalism is most completely borne out by that party. Citizens United (and the party's lock-step endorsement of it) exemplifies the very issue of the distorting effects of concentrated wealth on democracy that OWS was formed in part to oppose. How can Occupy Wall Street possible feel kindness toward the very party that serves Wall Street's interests the most? How can a movement that is pro-worker embrace the anti-union bile and demagoguery that spills from that party's leaders and rank and file alike?

I have read a number of your posts. I don't believe you are here to satisfy your curiosity. I think you are here to promote your anti-OWSer message. The very user name you chose is a clear indication of your desire to provoke division. If you were simply here to get a clearer understanding of OWS's message, you would surely not have chosen such an intentionally inflammatory handle, nor declared that you "don't believe in what OWS is doing."

[-] 0 points by AntiOWSer (18) 2 years ago

Would you rather me have chosen a misleading name as "OWS #1 Superfan!!!11!1?" I'm trying to get a better understanding of OWS for myself, and god forbid, try to offer a bit of constructive criticism in this post.

If you think that I am here to provoke division, that makes about as much sense as it would for me to think that I would be able provoke division in these forums.

...As for the rest of the rest of the questions, you asked, I'll maybe try to reply later. I've been rather short of time spend online lately (sorry for the excuse).

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your use of hyperbole in your response leaves me even less likely to take you at or word. There is a huge difference between choosing an inflammatory username and a neutral one. No one is suggesting "Superfan" or anything close, but your self-description is just that, description of your stance: "Anti" does NOT connote dispassionate curiosity, but active opposition.

Truly constructive criticism is always welcome, at least by me. It helps to make the movement stronger. I continue to hope, despite what I see so far, that that is your motivation.

[-] -1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 2 years ago

Sorry if you're still hung up on my name. I didn't want to use a name I use elsewhere on the Internet, and I wanted to be clear that I'm not pro-OWS (rather than leaving one to figure that out from my posts). Instead of spending time trying to think of a new name, this one worked. (Plus, "AntiOWS" was already taken).

I assume by your first reply to me ("I think it will be very hard to maintain a non-troll status with the username you have chosen"), that you'll at least give me the benefit of the doubt about me not being here to troll. You could have just called me a liar and a troll, but you didn't.

...And given that little number next to my name, when compared to other anti-OWS members, the fact that mine is still a positive number (rather than double-digit negative number) may speak for itself. (Although, I have no idea what the number means, or how to make it go up or down. If you happen to know, and could provide an explanation, I'd appreciate it.)

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

As I said, I hope that I am wrong. But if you want others not to have an instant negative reaction to you, I suggest you change that username to something that, instead of being blatantly oppositional, is at least neutral. It would serve you stated purpose better.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago
  1. I actually don't mind the name Occupy. The name only becomes bad if the movement lets the name become a bad thing. If the movement becomes better the name will too.

  2. I agree.

  3. You have anything in mind?

[-] -2 points by Grownup3 (-30) 2 years ago

99% is the least accurate name. It's the 1% or 2% that deeply believes in socialism that's trying to convince the "99%" that its ideas are the right ones. But to call itself the "99%" is utter bullshit over-reaching.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Some critics... I am not going to be gentle but I feel this is necessary.

Occupy appears from outside as a leaderless movement. This doesn't favour unifying message.

Second, have you ever thought how ANNOYING it is to REPEAT LIKE SHEEP every sentence an occupier says. I mean, the movement is supposed to make people THINK, not repeat!

Third. Tent gathering is not a good idea. Protesting for social rights is not about camping in parks....

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

that's a reason to make elections holidays

so people have time to think

http://occupywallst.org/forum/support-the-99-demand-elections-be-national-and-st/

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OWS hasn't made any mistakes. All you have to do is occupy.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

O..okaaay...

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im witnessing another Occupy mistake right now...

So im flipping through the channels. I see on Faux News that they are interviewing an "Occupier". They chose the single worse Occupy representative to interview. This is what happens when you have a lack of structure in a movement. How the hell is this dude an Occupy representative? And why the hell was he allowed to feed the Faux News trolls and paint this movement is such a bad light?

Wake the hell up guys.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You're assuming he actually was an OWS organizer. This is Faux News were talking about. In all probability, he has nothing to do with OWS, he's probably some Fox flunky's nephew engaged in a phony 'interview.'

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

That would be my assessment. FUX with your mind News has no interest in neutrality, much less reality.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's one of the beauties of what's going on right now, OWS-related and otherwise. People are starting to see through the BS of both MSM and the government. I think that's one reason they're in a panic over the Internet. The free dissemination of information is not in their best interests.

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

Many of my old views have changed due to OWS. It angers me to no end to realize how badly I used to be manipulated by false campaigning.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Don't be too angry. The PTB have got manipulation down to a science, literally. Look at how many millions of us are still completely clueless (and quite trusting).

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

An evil science.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Absolutely. A science whose premise is dumbing-down and controlling the population of an entire nation. If I didn't know better, I'd think we were talking about Nazi Germany, or Stalin's USSR. The only thing missing are the gulags and concentration camps. Oh wait . . . .

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

Don't give them any ideas.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Oops! ;-)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

Here we go with another attempt to co-opt.

[-] -2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Can you please elaborate? I don't see how pointing out big mistakes by the movement is an "attempt to co-opt".

If you think Occupy is great just how it is and doesn't need to evolve, and that it hasn't made any crucial mistakes so far, you are dreaming. If you can't see some of the major problems I fear that there are to many like you in the movement that refuse to acknowledge Occupy's flaws and as a result will cause it to fail.

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

Not making Getting Outside Money Out of Politics its core message and goal.

That was your first mistake. You see, it isn't that OWS made a mistake here. It is that this is the one that you are willing to rally behind. You are transparent.

Everything that follows your first line indicates that you are attempting to co-opt.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I've been with this movement from the very beginning. I still don't see how you are accusing me of "trying to co-opt". How is pointing out mistakes co-opting?

You really seem to be on this kick that if Occupy keeps going down the path its going its going to bring forth real change. Its not. You can't even see the amount of potential Occupiers we are turning off by our unstructured nonsense. You don't seem to be bothered that Occupy is being infested by a bunch of people that completely go against the "non-violent" nature of the movement. And thats sad.

Also one of the main concepts of Occupy from the beginning was Getting outside money out of politics. But it was never its core message. So again, how is me taking an idea that was already in the movement from the very beginning and suggesting making it the core message (because it is by far the most important) an attempt for me to "co-opt" the movement?

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

The biggest problems were in the camps themselves. Too much emphasis on day to day activities, and not enough on recruiting the masses from their predefined cages.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Biggest mistake, not making our message their message.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

What do you mean by "their" message? I think I agree with you but I just want to make sure I understand your meaning.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We diluted our message by adding side issues, preventing others from embracing the core message which is theirs also.

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I thought that is what you meant, just wanted to make sure lol.

I agree. But I don't even really mind the fact based side issues as long as they are under the context of a core universal message. But it kind of feel like the "messages" are on the verge alienating rather than bringing people into the Occupy's fold, don't you think?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The more side issues we include, the more people we alienate. I would prefer we kept to the single message of throwing out the corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals, and regaining out rightful place at the core of Democracy.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Yeah I agree with you. I was just trying to show I do understand the reasoning of all the other side issues. But so many issues at once and no coherent message is hurting the movements ability to bring in more people.

When Occupy began having all these issues brought up at once helped it because it was different and new and felt right. Now it comes off as either just being cute or down right annoying. I agree, for act 2 of the movement it needs to evolve to a coherent message that is universal, easy for people to latch onto and deals with the root of the problems in our country.

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

that the people are not in control of their government ?

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

That SHOULD be apart of the main message of Occupy. So I think we are in agreement.

But how does Occupying the harbor or Sotheby's do anything about that? Some of the things Occupy has been doing just seems pointless.

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

the people want control of their business

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Do you really believe that when Occupy is seen on tv clashing with police due to "Occupying the Harbor!1" that doing so brings in more people to the cause or turns people off?

And wouldn't the best way to achieve this goal to be..getting outside money out of politics? So why not just advocate for that since it ties all of the problems together and is at the root of the problem? And its a simple universal message. Occupying Sotheby's for a painting just comes off as petty and even if you were to achieve something there..so what?

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

the people are apathetic

doubt the people cared much one way or the other that the harbor was closed for a day

bet some that had jobs were glad for a break from their regimented schedule

pretty sure most could care less about big business losses

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

You..you have to be a troll.

You are either a troll or you are completely delusional.

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

I wonder if a court case could be created for making elections a national holiday by november

[-] -1 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

So francismjenkins where is the link to the 10k people you counted at mayday?

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

OAKLAND, Calif. — Thousands of protesters in New York demanded an end to income inequality and housing foreclosures. Police fired tear gas to disperse marchers in Oakland, Calif. And black-clad demonstrators smashed windows in Seattle and occupied a building owned by the Catholic archdiocese in San Francisco.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57425793/stinging-gas-sends-may-day-protesters-fleeing/

Thousands of people turned out in New York for a day of action that culminated in a confident march down Broadway in the evening sunshine towards Wall Street, the crucible of the protest that began last year with an angry backlash against banking excess.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/02/occupy-may-day-protests

Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters began marching down Broadway in New York City at 5:30 this afternoon after a day long protest at Union Square. CBS News reports that there were approximately 30 arrests during the day but the march was essentially peaceful. Several different groups were well represented in the march including employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York who were among the most outspoken as they protested budget cuts.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-784282?hpt=hp_bn1

Thousands of protesters converged on Lower Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon in the culmination of May Day demonstrations organized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, resulting in occasionally bloody clashes and the arrests of more than 30 demonstrators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion/may-day-demonstrations-lead-to-clashes-and-arrests.html

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, in New York City, tens of thousands of protesters continued streaming into Union Square Park, then marched towards Wall Street in the evening for a General Assembly, among them, immigrants’ rights activists highlighting the plight of undocumented workers and students. Democracy Now! spoke with one of the protesters, named Guadalupe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/2/may_day_legacy_of_labor_immigrant

[-] 0 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

Sorry Amy Goodman is not credible. As for the others they said thousands not 10k. Try again moron.

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

But the Wall Street Journal is eh? Would you go back to having sex with your sister dumbass (but please, wear a rubber)?

[-] -1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Trying to be a nonpolitical political movement.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

This is one of the best threads I’ve seen on this site in the short time I’ve been visiting. I’m an early sympathizer of OWS; not so much a active member; although I attended one rally in my town. I had high hopes. OWS had a lot of the same concerns I had; Unions and collective bargaining, getting the banks under control, getting big money out of Washington, affordable education and health care. I think most Americans have almost the same concerns.

However, I became disillusioned when the OWS encampments started breaking the law, hassling the cops and citizens. After a while I realized there were no issues and no plans other than continue the craziness. Frankly I just shook my head and lost interest.

Then just recently I stumbled on this site. I don’t even remember how I got here, wasn’t looking for it. Started reading the threads and posts. I became angry, even anti-OWS. What this feels like is a bunch of over privileged, over idealistic kids, looking for a street party. Their just here for the beer (metaphorically speaking).

The anarchists worry me. I see them as potential terrorists (Note the five guts in Ohio). Now, after reading the anarchist mentality posts I believe OWS has provided a forum for those who want violence. The masses will not support violence, regardless how valid the cause.

So to answer the original question of the thread. What I think WILL happen is OWS will splinter. Some groups will focus on specific issues and be successful. Others will keep n the stupid shit for a while, but will burn out.

The concept and ideals of OWS are alive and well. But they’re still in a learning curve on how to proceed. I just hope masses don’t write off all of OWS as crazies.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Well said, jbgramps. And thanks for the kind words.

But I don't think the Anarchists are real Occupiers. But because the movement is so unstructured the very few Anarchists trouble makers that attend the rallies go unchecked by the real Occupiers(which ironically is 99% of the protesters).

But overall I agree with your assessment. If the Occupy movement were to evolve and learn from its mistakes now it wouldn't need to splinter off. If they don't get their messaging in check and get enough structure to weed out the crazies in due time unfortunately they will need to splinter.

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

You sound like me, circa October 2011....

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Much too simplistic a theory and message.

Big organizations, including big banks, aren't all bad, or even necessarily bad. Some of them, and some people in them, have done stupid or greedy things to be sure; but lots of people have a house or a business or whatever because of them as well. A lot of them, including big banks, are very good employers, offering the sort of jobs and benefits everybody here claims to want for people. Most of them also support their local communities with millions of dollars of charitable giving too. People know that, and view the "big-corporation-as-evil-monster" rhetoric as silly. It may fee good to call them that, but it's not credible to most people.

Likewise, not everybody that got a house foreclosed upon is some sort of Woodie Guthrie style downtrodden worker. Lots of people make stupid choices or are greedy, and buy a house they can't afford 'cause they think they can flip it in couple of years and make a killing, among many other stupid and greedy things people do that hurt themselves. The folks who didn't make stupid or greedy choices know that, and wonder why they should pick up the tab.

Theory-wise, there's a lot of half-baked rhetoric about how everything would be great if we just stripped the fabled 1% of their wealth and nationalized big companies and re-distributed it all. Anyone with a calculator and a couple of free hours and a bit of knowledge about how economics and money and business really work knows it's all pretty silly It reminds older folks of when they were themselves young and full of themselves and full of simplistic ideas for changing/saving the world; and it sounds like bullshit to them because it is. Even it it were possible and desirable, which it isn't, it'll never happen.

People don't take you seriously when you sound that way; so if OWS wants to get some traction in the larger society, its got to mature to much more real-world theory and rhetoric -- things that actually conform to facts, things that can actually be done and might actually get done. If it doesn't, it'll wind up just like the Socialist Workers' Party and the American Communist Party--a few embittered old people sitting around telling each other they're doing something big and they're going to change the world, and being ignored or laughed at by that world; and eventually fading away.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

"lots of people have a house or a business .... because of them" Like they some kind of favor. They loaned money and charged interest. They don't get points for providing what they are supposed to. Big banks crashed the world economy! then they threatened to stop lending money unless we gave them a trillion dollars (socialist bail out)! Remember! "not everyone is a woody guthrie .. sowntrodden worker" lets not get into blaming the victim. The victim was your fellow Americans. and the only who made money on the deal was your wonderful bank. The only one who got hurt was the your fellow American! Who are you with? I mean clearly the Bankers, lawyers,mortgage people, real estate people in the room when these mortgages were given should have known if it was a bad loan. Don't blame our fellow American. You used "silly" "half baked" "stupid" "greedy" to describe ows and /or foreclosed Americans. You are clearly not open minded, not fair minded. you support the wonderful big banks we support the american people. Support ows, Support the 99% stop the foreclosures. prosecute the banks that crashed the world economy.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

You just proved my point. Do you really think you’ll change anybody’s mind or influence public policy with that sort of ranting?

But no matter. Let's take some concrete examples of what I was talking about. The front page of the OWS site today I note that they're protesting against Sotheby's auction house because Sotheby’s sold Munch’s The Scream for a ton of money. Do you think that the average working person has the time or inclination to give a fuck about who sold what painting for how much? If you do, you're out of touch with reality. To the extent that most people think about it, the only thing they think is that they hope that they will find a painting like that at a garage sale so they can sell it for $100 million. The protest at Sotheby's is an exercise in mutual masturbation. To the average person it means nothing, and it will accomplish nothing.

More substantively, I note that they are protesting against Bank of America for its involvement with , horror of horrors, funding the coal industry. Sure, Bank of America loans money to coal companies. They amount to loan money to lots of companies. That's the business they are in. Lots of other companies do business with coal companies too–Procter & Gamble sells them the toilet paper they use in the bathrooms. The guy who runs the gas station across the street from the coal mine sells them gas. The grocery store in town sells them things, too. And no doubt all of these people hope that the coal company continues to make money. The nerve. I guess that makes all of them evil too.

More seriously, this is another example of where the OWS rhetoric isn't very well thought through. Suppose you succeed in shutting down those coal mines. That puts all those coal miners out of work. Those are decent, hard-working people with families and mortgages, and they're all unionized, and most of them don’t know how to do anything else. I thought you had solidarity with unionized blue-collar workers. I guess not. You're going to shut down the mine and put them all out of work; and in those old mining towns in West Virginia a job in the mine–a good, unionized job, is the only good job in town and they all go away. So you just destroyed the jobs and you destroyed the town along with them, including the guy at the gas station and the grocery store and left everybody there hanging out to dry. Are they all evil too, like the coal company and BoA? How is that helping the American worker? It doesn't look to me like any of the people doing the railing and writing the screeds have thought any of this through. I doubt very seriously that it even occurred to the folks organizing that protest.

Beyond that, I note you’re posting to this website via electronic communication. They call it electronic because it uses electricity. I don't guess you’re using a wood–fired computer. My guess is it's plugged into a wall socket, just like everybody else that uses this site, including the anti-coal bunch. There's a pretty good chance that electricity is coming from a coal–fired power plant. Shut down those coal-fired plants and you eliminate 57% of the generating capacity in the United States. What 57% of the electrical usage in the US does OWS plan to shut off? I haven’t seen that mentioned anywhere.

You could, of course, replace that with natural gas, but then OWS doesn't like fracking either. So then, we get into the we’ll-just–use–green–energy rhetoric, which once again shows that the people saying these things don’t really know too much about them. Plug-in electric cars get their electricity from the same place your computer does–coal and natural gas. Solar and wind power provide only a tiny fraction of US electricity, and it has yet to be proven that they can replace a significant percentage of the electricity now generated by fossil fuels. It would take some as-yet unmade engineering breakthroughs to happen, and there’s no guarantee at all that they will happen. And under even the most wildly optimistic assumptions, wind and solar will take decades to produce a significant percentage of the electricity used by the United States right now, much less in the future, with a bigger population and correspondingly greater usage. What the fuck does OWS plan to light up everybody’s house and run their computer with in the meantime? Fairy dust?

So, all that railing against coal is both dumb and hypocritical. Everyone uses this site is making the choice to use electricity, and with it coal and natural gas. Anyone who says they're being forced to use these things is again either out of touch with reality and/or a hypocrite. Using electricity is a necessity if you want to live in Manhattan and ride the subway and drink coffee in a coffeehouse with your buddies, but nobody makes you do that. Nobody makes you fire up a computer and use this site. Those are all choices, and you could choose otherwise. I know people that have been off the grid for 30 years, and you can go to any Amish town in Pennsylvania and see lots of folks who live quite nicely and prosperously without electricity, automobiles, petroleum products and lots of other things of the sort that some folks here find so disagreeable.

Sure, coal pollutes. And in any event, fossil fuels will run out at some point. And I’m in favor, as much as anyone, of a national strategy for developing cleaner, sustainable alternatives. But a silly–assed, ignorant screed demonizing banks and coal companies, and trying to put them out of business without having done some serious, long–term development of alternatives that are ready to go when they ARE out of business isn't a game plan. It's bullshit. Lecture everybody on the evils of coal and natural gas when you're living off the grid, or when you’ve perfected nuclear fusion. In the meantime, do some homework and offer up some serious public policy choices or go to engineering school and do something useful about it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Sotheby's fired dozens of unionized workers and replaced with temporary workers with no benefits. BofA, is one the big banks that crashed the world economy, gave sub-prime mortgages, bundled and sold bad mortgages as good investments, perpetrated fraudelant foreclosures, took bail out money (socialism), borrow money from taxpayer @1% while lending it out to Americans for 29.99%. Coal pollutes, you said it! We are against pollution. You aren't? One day Coal workers will have other energy jobs to transfer to. Something that will not poison the air so much. We aren't against energy, we are for clean air for our children to breath. We support jobs for coal workers in alternative energy. Support ows, vote out big bank, big oil lovin republicans. Join us we are for you.

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

All the things you listed were done with Bi-partisan support, at every step of the way.

You are being scammed. How old are you?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

How old are you? I'm old enough to recognized one party is anti minority, one routinely blames the victim. One party has no regard for womens rights, The dems have serious problems but they can be made to serve the 99%. Support OWS!! Vote out anti women politicians!!

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

I'm 32. So how old are you?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I'm 49. What does that matter? support ows. vote out the anti SS politicians

[-] -1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

A reply in depth would be pointless. This is starting to be a recursive discussion.

[-] -2 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

The question should be:

What has OWS done right?

In short the answer is nothing.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

It has done something huge. It has changed the national dialogue from Cuts and Austerity to Growth and Income Equality. Thats a big deal. But by no means the endgame. I just fear the movement will destroy itself before it even comes close to actually being apart of fixing these problems.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

The "national dialogue"? No,maybe the Liberal MSM has repeated your mantra here and there and we all know Obama is all about wealth redistribution and such but to have affected the national dialogue?...not quite. " Income Equality" is not on the fore front of anybody's mind except for Leftist's and OWS the rest of America is more concerned about ridding the nation of the plague that is Obama and his Regime in Nov.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I have my problems with Obama so if you're implying that I am a blind follower you are completely mischaracterizing me.

So are you trying to say that there is NOTHING wrong with the tactics of Occupy? That there are no flaws that needs to be fixed? Thats its good for fringe elements that force themselves into Occupy protests and be seen damaging property over something vague like Occupying the Harbor? You mean to tell me that the movement is truly fine and in great shape?

Im also curious to know what YOU want out of this movement? What accomplishments do you want Occupy to achieve? And how do you feel about people that have damaged property of businesses?

[-] 0 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

Sorry,I guess I should clarify.

I know OWS to be a creation of Leftist activist's (ADBusters,Soros) and fully embraced by Dems (and many anti-American/hostile groups). This movement is not serving any function other then to act as a distraction. Obama and the Dems appreciate the attempt at changing the narrative from BHO's pathetic and destructive record as "Preezy" to class warfare,protesting and blaming the "1%"er''s which blends well with Oblamers worn out rhetoric. If you have read the agenda and demands from the group over the last 6-8 months you come to understand that most of it is absolutely incredulous and not worthy of any real consideration.

I would like to see this movement go away,mainly because it is a vehicle for Progressive anti-American/Anarchists and other hostile forces that do not have the best intentions. Obama is using OWS to help in his re-election,as many OWS people are ardent Obama Drones,distraction,distraction,distraction.

As far as "people that have damaged property of businesses?" They are criminals and OWS should just man up and own it all. The often used excuse is "it's just a few bad apples" when in fact there are a LOT of fucked up,aggressive and militant activist's aligned with OWS and will continue to commit these violent and destructive acts as long as OWS is out there pushing this movement and ginning up the masses of disgruntled people. Escalation of violence and rhetoric and destruction will be the only course for OWS to follow as their numbers dwindle and their media footprint grows smaller. It's just how these things play themselves out.

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

The Al-Shifa (الشفاء, Arabic for "healing") pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum North, Sudan, was constructed between 1992 and 1996 with components imported from the United States, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, India, and Thailand.

The industrial complex was composed of around four buildings. It was the largest pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum and employed over 300 workers, producing medicine both for human and veterinary use. The factory was used primarily for the manufacture of anti-malaria medicines and veterinary products.

The factory was destroyed in 1998 by a missile attack launched by the United States government, killing one employee and wounding eleven. Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off.[1][2] The US government stated several reasons for its attack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

What the hell does this have to do with anything...

[-] 0 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.

This explains some of your Messiah's motivations and animosities.

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

eh, didn't read that one

I thought we were talking about property destruction

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Matt, it's off topic, but I just wanted to thank you for your long and dedicated contribution to pascifism on this forum.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

redackdid..So you're one of THOSE guys. You lost me with the "Soros did it" rhetoric. And the petty Obama name calling, is that really necessary? You sound like a Faux News drone with all that pointless nonsense you're spewing. Please stay on topic without getting into wacko conspiracy theories.

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

Hey look,I don't expect you to listen to me or anybody else who will tell you the same things. Just go about your biz and ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative. It's your free will and your right to make all the mistakes you want,live it up and enjoy by all means.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

But you're the one who came in here with Faux News rhetoric. I asked for productive replies not far right talking points that serve no purpose.

I just don't see how anyone in the Occupy movement can read your post and sound like you aren't talking down to them and insulting them. And I understand you don't like President Obama, but how does all of those things about Obama contribute to this topic in anyway?

Its not about us agreeing on everything. Its just about getting people engaged with productive statements whether you agree with Occupy or not.

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

Well,you're right I'm not here to encourage OWS or offer positive feedback for the further benefit of this movement. I'm only giving you an opinion contrary to what most of you believe. Why? because dissuading anybody,even one person from continuing this madness and see things for what they are and not the Leftist propaganda is a worthy enough goal.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

At least they are attempting to deal with the core issues(even if they aren't doing a good job of it). What are YOU doing to change anything? What did the tea party do to end the corruption in our political system? Nothing, they were to busy with trying to cut everything and supposedly "Shrink" government. But their logic is fraud. Cut government programs that people need isn't actually doing anything to fix the corruption problem in our politics and government. Nothing at all. Just blowing hot air.

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

After reading your post I now understand how little YOU understand the role of Govt. and what the TEA party was really all about. You seem to be focus completely on this "corruption" narrative and "corporate greed" mantra. There is so many things you seem to not understand about politics and the corruption within the Democrat party and how much they are behind a lot of what you are railing against. But hey,I'm not going to change your mind and I don't really care either way.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

redackdid, So when the tea party advocates for the government forcing women to have vaginal probes before abortions, you mean that isn't a gross form of government over reach and an example of government "being to big"?

And if you want a disgusting example of big government and government over reach just look at what Gov. Snyder is doing in Michigan. Its literally a dictatorship through proxy. He has the power to waive all power form any elected official in the state and enact any laws he wants. Where the fuck is the tea party marching in Michigan and yelling "Socialism" or "Communism"?

The fact that the far right have not said a damn thing about the disgusting things "King" Snyder is doing to democracy in Michigan proves the tea party were and still are frauds when it comes to wanting "smaller government".

So don't give me that arrogant crap as if I don't understand the role of Government but somehow the tea party does. They have done nothing but completely contradict themselves.

Edit: Also I would like to point out that this movement isn't JUST about rallying against Republicans. The whole damn political system is corrupt so of course both parties are corrupted by the outside money. If you haven't notice that about this movement by now then you have your blinders on and you aren't willing to be open minded about anything Occupy and you're just here to spew.

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

The only regulations OWS,Dems and the Left do not love is:

Any regulation on abortion,killing babies.

Any regulation on illegal aliens and their invasion of this country.

Any regulation of the voting identification process.

Any regulation of the taxpayers money paid in benefits to illegals.

Any regulation of the institution of Marriage,can't be just a Man and a Women,NO!!

Any regulation on how,when and what young children are being taught about sex,homo's and all LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ lifestyles and perversions.

Concerning your Edit,OWS is 99% Leftist ideologues and are in complete support of Obama and the Dems. This is a fact,this forum is a great example of just that.

OWS doesn't really care about corruption,not the corruption perpetrated by Obama,Holder,Pelosi,Barney Frank and so on. OWS doesn't care about the corruption of the "green energy" taxpayer rip offs,the voter fraud of ACORN,Fast and Furious,the corruption of illegals receiving taxpayer funded bennies,the complete freedom and liberty fuck of Obamacare and how this will forever alter the role of Govt. in our personal lives,the lying,the propaganda about domestic oil supplies and this countries usage spewed over and over from Oblamers big lying mouth,OWS doesn't care about any of that,not about ridiculously high gas prices,not about high sustained unemployment,not about private sector business dying under the weight of Obama regulations.

No,OWS just cares about student loans being forgiven and "income equality" (translation) something for nothing.

That was just a very short list by the way.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

So..basically you just ignored the factual based examples I gave you, decided not to reply to any of them, and went on a Faux News rhetoric rant.

Im just going to take it that you are one of those guys that advocate for less government when its convenient for you and your party. But when its your party doing something as rotten and big government..y as what they are doing in Michigan..its okay. I see. Go ahead with your "Oblamers, Soros, blahblahblah nonsense. You really are just making yourself look like a sheep.

Im talking about fixing something real like bribery in politics(bi partisan problems). You're stuck on petty made up shit. Just like the majority of the tea party.

[-] 0 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

I can be just as dismissive and unresponsive to your so called "factual based" MSLSD rhetoric rant examples as you are to anything I've submitted,so don't go gett'in all hot under the collar cause you think you've been dissed. You don't give a shit about my points and now I'm not giving a shit either,no big deal just chill and deal with it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

What an open, willing mouth for the oligarchy. I certainly hope you're getting paid, because otherwise such pathetic, survile obsequience borders upon masochism and on the kinkier side of things in general.

Come back when you're off the leash.

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

IDK, I came across a guy on twitter today with a 5 year old blog filled with hate rants. Posted pretty regularly too. No advertisements, from what I could tell, it was non-profit hate mongering. I sometime underestimate the borg like quality of hate. Once they're on that dark lonely path, resistance is futile.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26691) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well in that case - let me just say.

BuBye - don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[-] -1 points by redackdid (-41) 2 years ago

David Spade you ain't,but a leftist drone you are.