#OccupyWallstreet

[michal1980]

You apparently share FNE's 1337 reading skillz. I made no assessment one way or the other about Rolling Stone as a whole. I don't read it. (My sense is they focus on pop culture, but that's not based on first-hand information.) My comments were aimed at the contents of one and only one article. That article did a great job of poking holes in people like you.

So you assed Fox News because you watch them regularly?

I've read rolling stone. If you think fox news has is a right wing new orgainization. Then Rolling stone is in bed with Karl Marx.

 

[Craig234]

You cant see the forest for the trees.

Your idiocy is massive, and annoying.

 

[palehorse]

I'm beginning to think that the total lack of a coordinated or centralized message is intentional -- at least by those who may otherwise be in a position to stand up and lead the movement.

Why? Two reasons:

1. It allows the "movement" to continue to grow in size regardless of the motivations, message, and intentions of any one particular protester -- including the many who are simply whiners or anti-American whackjobs.

2. It gives every single individual protester and supporter plausible deniability for the "fringe messages" being shouted by the protesters standing right next to them, or those spotlighted in the media (as evidenced in this very thread).

It's all rather brilliant when you consider it. However, I do believe that these benefits will eventually turn into weaknesses if/when they try and flip a switch to present a single message... at least, I hope so.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm beginning to think that the total lack of a coordinated or centralized message is intentional -- at least by those who may otherwise be in a position to stand up and lead the movement.

Why? Two reasons:

1. It allows the "movement" to continue to grow in size regardless of the motivations, message, and intentions of any one particular protester -- including the many who are simply whiners or anti-American whackjobs.

2. It gives every single individual protester and supporter plausible deniability for the "fringe messages" being shouted by the protesters standing right next to them, or those spotlighted in the media (as evidenced in this very thread).

It's all rather brilliant when you consider it. However, I do believe that these benefits will eventually turn into weaknesses if/when they try and flip a switch to present a single message... at least, I hope so.

Why would you hope so? It's not as if you have some position of great wealth & power to protect from the common man...

Not to worry, however. Even if OWS succeeds in restoring some integrity to the system, there will still be the Rich & Powerful for you to serve & worship...

 

[Darwin333]

Bowfinger has continued to call Associated Press nutter sources, so we can include NBC in there as well proving how removed from reality he really is.

So you think so highly of Bowfingers opinion that he decides which news sources are nutter or not for you?

 

[Darwin333]

They protested. No one cared. Then they decided to throw a temper tantrum like a bunch of 2 year olds.

What does that have to do with my question? A few gun owners go nuts and that should decide your right? Or is it the caring part that determines your rights?

Personally I prefer using the Constitution even though your side disagrees.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you assed Fox News because you watch them regularly?

I've read rolling stone. If you think fox news has is a right wing new orgainization. Then Rolling stone is in bed with Karl Marx.

If you say so. I guess that's a good reason for me to NOT bother subscribing to Rolling Stone. But what does that have to do with the one article linked earlier?

 

[Bowfinger]

So you think so highly of Bowfingers opinion that he decides which news sources are nutter or not for you?

Of course he's lying since I never called AP or the NBC Nightly News nutter. Those are his words. The special irony here is that "nutter" is a pejorative derived from wing-nut, and wing-nut, of course, refers to the right wing. Spidey is thus accusing the Associated Press and NBC Nightly News of being right-wing news sources ... or he would be if he had the slightest clue what he's saying.

 

[palehorse]

Why would you hope so? It's not as if you have some position of great wealth & power to protect from the common man...

Not to worry, however. Even if OWS succeeds in restoring some integrity to the system, there will still be the Rich & Powerful for you to serve & worship...

OK, I'll concede that it would be great to see corruption and greed eliminated from Government. If they succeed in doing so without destroying capitalism or pushing every last company offshore, I'd jump for joy.

However, as I see it, the problem is that the "main gist" of this "movement," and the likely centralized message that may result, isn't going after those who are corrupted -- the politicians. Instead, they're only aiming at the money itself, and big corporations/wealth in general.

The corrupt politicians -- IOW all of them -- are the real root of our problem. Eliminate their legal avenues that allow for and encourage corruption -- the lobby and campaign LAWS -- and you'll end up with a Wall Street that is no longer able to run the show.

So, I guess you could say that I only hope they'll ultimately realize their error and change direction. As long as they (you?) keep trying to go after the money itself, they'll fail...

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

wimmenz getting raped in OWS.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_park_big_top_ilBy4VfYIwDGt2I1rM33vL

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

btw, shouldn't the name be changed to occupy zucotti park?

 

[HendrixFan]

This is rich. A guy that can ignore the agenda of Rolling Stone has problems with Fox news.

Come back when your closed mindedness is over.

Rolling Stone has an agenda beyond selling magazines and pumping up every album they review as 3 stars or better?

 

[michal1980]

Rolling Stone has an agenda beyond selling magazines and pumping up every album they review as 3 stars or better?

Fox News has an agenda beyond selling ads?

 

[HendrixFan]

Fox News has an agenda beyond selling ads?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

 

[michal1980]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

Thanks for helping me prove my point. read some rolling stone. Its a lefty heaven magazine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for helping me prove my point. read some rolling stone. Its a lefty heaven magazine.

So, uhh, they're calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat, confiscation of all private property, and collectivization? Really?

I musta missed that, or maybe I'm just not wearing my wingnut goggles...

 

[michal1980]

So, uhh, they're calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat, confiscation of all private property, and collectivization? Really?

I musta missed that, or maybe I'm just not wearing my wingnut goggles...

or maybe you just think that anyone that disagrees with you is a wingnut and wrong. and evryone that agrees is correct. Its easy to be closed minded

 

[HendrixFan]

Thanks for helping me prove my point. read some rolling stone. Its a lefty heaven magazine.

In the link he says he uses Fox News to push his ideology. He has the money and power to do so, I don't begrudge him for that. But I also don't think it is right to pretend it isn't happening.

 

[Bowfinger]

or maybe you just think that anyone that disagrees with you is a wingnut and wrong. and evryone that agrees is correct. Its easy to be closed minded

You certainly seem to be the expert on closed minds, and as I pointed out before, your reading skills leave much to be desired. The question before you was pretty simple. Can you show where they're calling for "the dictatorship of the proletariat, confiscation of all private property, and collectivization" or not? If so, you may merit further discussion. If not, you're just pulling talking points out of your ass and can therefore be summarily dismissed. It has nothing to do with Jhhnn. It has everything to do with your consistent failure to support your claims.

I'd also point out that you continue to dodge a question I posed. You squawk again and again about how liberal Rolling Stone is, how it is a "lefty heaven magazine." Whatever, you're welcome to your opinion. I don't read it so I can't offer my own.

But, presuming it is liberal, so what? You've consistently failed (I sense a theme here) to explain what this alleged bias has to do with Taibbi's piece. Did you even read it? Honestly? On the odd chance you did, how is it inaccurate? Unless you can start answering questions like this, all you are doing is demonstrating your own very closed mind.

 

[Bowfinger]

In the link he says he uses Fox News to push his ideology. He has the money and power to do so, I don't begrudge him for that. But I also don't think it is right to pretend it isn't happening.

Yes, even most righties openly acknowledge Fox's obvious right-wing bias. You have to be way out on the fringe to deny it.

 

[HendrixFan]

But, presuming it is liberal, so what? You've consistently failed (I sense a theme here) to explain what this alleged bias has to do with Taibbi's piece. Did you even read it? Honestly? On the odd chance you did, how is it inaccurate? Unless you can start answering questions like this, all you are doing is demonstrating your own very closed mind.

This thread is 2500 replies arguing this basic premise. OWS is liberal so it must be bad! Anything trying to explain the "confusing" nature of the OWS is just a liberal rag and part of the propaganda.

It is quite interesting to think about, the OWS is intentionally open in its disgust for Wall Street and refuses to organize into specific demands. That open nature allows more people to feel like they are a part of it, as the broad stripe it paints should include most everyone's concerns. Oddly, that open ended nature allows those who oppose power being distributed amongst the general populace to push all of their bogeyman concerns into the OWS pile. Basically, it is whatever people want it to be, good or bad.

 

[Phokus]

I'm beginning to think that the total lack of a coordinated or centralized message is intentional -- at least by those who may otherwise be in a position to stand up and lead the movement.

Why? Two reasons:

1. It allows the "movement" to continue to grow in size regardless of the motivations, message, and intentions of any one particular protester -- including the many who are simply whiners or anti-American whackjobs.

2. It gives every single individual protester and supporter plausible deniability for the "fringe messages" being shouted by the protesters standing right next to them, or those spotlighted in the media (as evidenced in this very thread).

It's all rather brilliant when you consider it. However, I do believe that these benefits will eventually turn into weaknesses if/when they try and flip a switch to present a single message... at least, I hope so.

Beyond that, having a central message means you have a message that can be hijacked. Having order/leadership means you have leaders that can be hijacked. See the tea party.

Trying to organize to get a few elected in power that ostensibly share your views isn't going to really change anything, but having massive demonstrations across the country puts real pressure on the government (well, maybe not republicans, they're naturally going to look out for the well off and fuck over the middle class and poor).

Kind of reminds me when the so-called hippies were causing so many problems in the street during the Vietnam war that Nixon famously quipped that they were giving the public the impression that HE started the war and not Johnson.

 

[wuliheron]

All this bullshit about OWS needing to be more organized misses the simple fact that every movement like it for the last 50 years that was more organized fell flat on its face.

Go ahead, start your own damned movement and organize it any way you want. These people are protesting and the protests are growing. Why on earth people insist on trying to fix something that isn't broken I can't understand. Anarchistic politics may not have been popular for the last 100 years, but that's your problem if it seems strange or unworkable to you. They're back and here to stay for at least awhile. Get over it.

 

[MagickMan]

All this bullshit about OWS needing to be more organized misses the simple fact that every movement like it for the last 50 years that was more organized fell flat on its face.

Go ahead, start your own damned movement and organize it any way you want. These people are protesting and the protests are growing. Why on earth people insist on trying to fix something that isn't broken I can't understand. Anarchistic politics may not have been popular for the last 100 years, but that's your problem if it seems strange or unworkable to you. They're back and here to stay for at least awhile. Get over it.

Except the Civil Rights movement, the Pro-Choice movement, the Anti-Vietnam war movement, and there's the TPM. I'm sure there are more, but that's what I thought of in ~10 seconds.

 

[MagickMan]

Also, they're all screaming in front of Wall Street, but none of the real decision makers are actually there. It's getting pretty cold right now, I'm sure the real people in charge are on a beach drinking Mai Tais. As far as I can see, the only thing that OWS is doing is causing headaches for the working stiffs who are just trying to make a living in the city. Oh, and they're pissing off the police, which could cause the governor of NY to soon declare a state of emergency and deploy the Nat'l Guard. That probably wouldn't go very well, they'd have to herd all those people into camps unless they disperse, and then you'd have a worse mess until it gets sorted out.

Oh well, I gues it might make a good TV mini-series some day. :hmm: