Plus, the irony of pro-Obama supporters protesting the bankers Obama bailed out. And was finacially supported by during his campaign. And will bail out again if need be. So, it's like the protesters are protesting against themselves.
Yeah, comedy at its finest.
I'm not going to explain it.
LOL, well that was easy.
Dr. Adequate writes:
You don't know that, but you do know that it's been over-reported by the media?
In the US. Yeah. Over hyped and double standards as usual. I could care less why people protest elsewhere.
I accept that they're critical of Obama, but I also feel that they will vote for Obama again. No chance these left leaning OWS'ers will vote republican. Which to me seems insane, to protest a bail out given by a president that they'll vote in again. - Oni
Yep you got them figured out. But calling them the partisan hacks that they are is not a popular thing to do around here.
Not forgetting the 10,000 in Santiago, the 2,000 in Porto Alegre, the 1,500 in Tel Aviv, the 8,000 in Brussels, the 10,000 in Zagreb, the 3,000 in Copenhagen, the 3,000 in London, the 2,000 in Paris, the 10,000 in Berlin, the 2,400 in Dusseldorf, the 5,000 in Frankfurt, the 4,000 in Athens, the 200,000 in Rome, the 2,000 in Amsterdam, the 20,000 in Lisbon, the 20,000 in Porto, the 4,000 in Ljubljana, the 400,000 in Barcelona, the 500,000 in Madrid, the 20,000 in Malaga, the 100,000 in Valencia, the 2,000 in Melbourne, the 3,000 in Sydney, and the 3,000 in Auckland. To name a portion of the more populated protests.
I canít decide between the grape and the fruit punch, which flavor do you prefer?
Transparency of political funding would be the first step in reforming political funding
That is why we got Barry Obama, he is all about transparency, he said so in his campaign, he is all about change and transparence. LOL I canít believe some of you fell for that line.
You think that's working for them? It started out pretty good, but they seem to be getting more and more ridicule these days.
Again, that seems to be the pattern with successful movements, so yes, I think that's working for them. As Ghandi is supposed to have said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win".
They've tried ignoring them, I guess you think they are at the laughing at them stage now.
Rather than all the complaining, I think the efforts would be better spent on the solution. Find some good leaders that will do what you want and tell everyone that these are who we're all gonna vote for.
That supposes that complaining about bad leaders is not a stage of finding good ones. I suggest that it is.
Because Wall Street profited while the people had to tighten their belts. The question is, why not Wall Street? Because the people accepted the risk, and Wall Street accepted the profit. They are generally thought to be responsible for the financial meltdown with their reckless speculations and outright fraudulent behaviour.
It makes sense if we're talking about being pissed at the bankers, but this other stuff doesn't seem to tie into that. At least, its awefully tangential.
Follow the money. Wall Street is making a killing. The people are not. And the politicians seem to be being corrupted by all that money.
Okay, but that's not really the sense I have been getting from the Occupy Wall Street protests. I'm feeling like they're pissed that they got screwed and want some retribution, not that they're out to put a bunch of work into fixing the system itself.
Then I propose you have gained the wrong sense from the Occupy Wall Street people. I suggest you look more closely. Ever heard of the General Assembly? Working Groups?
Maybe I'm not seeing the right coverage... (no TV, just random internet stuff)
Maybe so. Have you tried occupywallst.org ? Nothing like the horses mouth, I find.
Yeah, see, this seems better to me. Actually do something, don't just bitch in the streets.
Hopefully you now realize that the bitching is an integral part of things. Anger is a tool that all movements have employed. Either way, at least you now know that it isn't just anger. There are ideas for action both within the political system and without it.
OWS protesters should have been carrying guns, I guess. I noticed that when armed, racist Tea Partiers were fomenting treason and armed rebellion against the Federal government all those times, there were suddenly no police to be found.
I haven't personally been to the Occupy Wall Street camp. But I have been to the Occupy London camp. And I can say pretty definitively that your description of the protesters as "parasites and criminals" isn't really accurate. I would almost regard myself as one of them. And I don't think I am a "parasite" or "criminal".
The camp has certainly attracted it's share of the homeless. I don't think that should surprise anyone given that London has a large homeless population, that the Occupiers don't turn people away and that they provide food, company and shelter (of sorts). But most of the occupiers I know are educated, articulate, motivated and have busy lives including, in many cases, jobs. Many (again unsurprisingly) are young and without many of the complications that plague the rest of us (e.g dependent children). Many are students - That is true. But many do have commitments to all manner of things from family, to jobs via volunteer organisations and charitable activities. There are some permanent stalwarts. But many necessarily come and go as required.
I didn't camp there. But I have spent a fair amount of time down there over the last month or so. On days off, after work and even during work lunch breaks. I did take my kids down to the informal creche that was going on a couple of times (they loved it). I have taken part in debates. I have despaired at the sometimes shambolic nature of debate. I have been inspired by the determined effort to show that things can be done differently. I have (occasionally) been impressed by the quality and nature of debate. I don't see Occupy as the final answer to anything in and of itself. But you have to start somewhere. And this seems more effective and less violent than many of the feasible alternatives to make the same kind of point. Whatever coverage CS is talking about the fact is that the Occupiers are purposefully looking for alternatives and asking questions that nobody else seems to be adequately addressing. Maybe it will all blow over and come to nothing. Maybe it will historically be viewed as nothing more than a bunch of smelly campers making a futile point.
But I hope not.
I'm really not sure what it is you are so against?
The point of your picture is obscure. So far as I know, Obama and Pelosi have described neither group as "terrorists", possibly because Obama and Pelosi are sane.
I shall say to you what I have said to the more cryptic of our creationist friends: it is no use you making oblique allusions to the world in your head, because since I do not live in it I am unable to follow your references to it.