Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by whosit, Nov 27, 2011.
Has Occupy Wall Street come up with a coherent message/demand yet? Just wondering.
But I bet it's a fun place to hang out, Occupy Wall Street. Woodstock-ish. Just without the cool bands.
I laugh at you.
Even if they had specific demands, people like you find a way to ridicule them, regardless of what they are...
Well, that's also true, no doubt about it. But for us, people who don't participate in OWS, is very difficult to comprehend what is it that they want or asking for. How will we know when they succeed?
Didn't Obama pass Wallstreet reforms? So shouldn't they move the occupy movement to the front and backyards of the rich?
Like Anonymous, it's a non-group group. So there's really no 'they' there.
Some demands of OWS-protestors which I think are reasonable:
- More progressive taxation ('tax the rich').
- An end to 'corporate personhood'.
Some demands of OWS-protestors which I think are downright stupid:
- Marxist revolution.
- Anarchist revolution.
- An end to the use of currency.
- An end to the purported conspiracy of Jewish bankers.
The problem is that the stupid pollutes the argument for the reasonable.
I guess if OWS get what they want, I won't be able to work in a bank. Damn it, and I thought I had such great ideas for world domination.
There won't BE any banks, come the revolution.
Oh yeah, I forgot. No currency.
We won't be needing any lawyers then either will we. - just sayin'
Well, it's good thing then that I took a couple of poll dancing classes. You never know when those might become handy.
We have prudent rules about making such claims as this.
There won't BE any pole dancing, come the revolution.
Hey, we're not talking about the Islamic revolution style Iran, are we?
There was plenty of poll dancing in socialist eastern european countries.
There won't BE any countries, come the revolution.
You need to update your rulebook.
WWP isn't /b/ or ReX
the dome is for discussing psychiatry with ex-scientologists, not for undressing critics.
There's been clear "demands" since the movement began. Of course, those who don't agree with them, mostly conservatives, just pretend that there aren't any. I agree though that it's kind of a mess. Many people aren't even sure why they attend the protests and were probably just invited by their friends.
I especially liked the $20min wage demand, ...among others.
"This isn't about reform, its about revolution." "Because occupations never work." -- I'll step it up and say that the majority people who attend occupations don't have a real clue about what is going on, they're just pissed and ows feels good, even if it's all FUBAR.
It will once you get laid.
Why not step it up and say that the majority of people who vote don't have a real clue what is going on, they're just pissed and voting feels good, even if their lack of engagement is one of the reasons it's all FUBAR.
All the more reason that a Representative Republic was pure brilliance, direct democracy on a national level would be a disaster. *twinkles*
which is what makes Managed Democracy all the more brilliant.
OK, I nominate me.
Unfortunately that isn't our constitutionally guaranteed form a government (United States).
We can haz none of that, come de I Can Haz Revolution. We can haz Lulzocracy ruled by Ceiling Cat, an LOLcats shall be de prophets. BOW MONKEYZ, BOW!!!!
Okay, but in an electoral system dependent on donations from well financed and unregulated 501(c)/PAC relationships and lobbyists, the constituents that lack such resources are under-represented if they are represented at all. A representative democracy that doesn't represent the electorate isn't what is guaranteed by the Constitution... in fact I believe the first American Revolution was fought on similar issues....
Besides, take a look at S.1253 and SOPA.... do you think the Constitution really matters to our government anymore?
As a complete aside. How do you feel about the current policies on "enemy combatant" status for US citizens and the ability to "execute" any one deemed a "threat".
As an example I'll use http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/
Was ok to kill him and which part of the constitution grants government (federal or state) to do that without due process?
As a follow up, his 14 year old son killed in the attack, also a US citizen, should he be included in which ever tortured reasoning was used to allow for the execution of a US citizen.
As another aside, would it matter if he had been residing in the states as opposed to abroad?
I look forward to hearing your reasoned response.
Government acting in a criminal manner. Nothing new here.
The US goes to foreign countries to destroy dangerous crops, ones that give opium or pot,
By the same logic, foreign countries could come to Virginia and destroy the tobacco growing there. I don't think it'll ever happen, for obvious reasons but the logic is the same.
Governments are always acting as if might gave right.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!