>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.
As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!
On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.
Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"
I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...


1st: The tea-party comparison.
The tea-party was a bunch of blowhards who want to destroy government. They have seized well on misdirected rage. Destroying something is a hell of a lot easier than fixing something that is almost terminally broken. We can't expect results as quickly as those folks because we're constructive, not destructive.

2nd: The real issue. (money in politics)
I think you're missing my point. Why trash a movement that could very well be the beginning of a societal awakening? It took many years for most major causes to gain traction. (see: prohibition repeal, civil rights, suffrage, etc.) I never said don't vote and I never said don't take action. I do all of those AND actively back OWS. I haven't missed a caucus since I was 18. We're active; don't think otherwise. The OWS movement isn't perfect, but nothing we humans do is. It's a step in the right direction. Will this movement bring the all-encompassing triumph? Doubtful. Will the next? Increasingly less doubtful...


Why don't you come out here and help, or at the very least don't throw stones at those putting their neck on the line for you. When is the last time you personally got news coverage because you towed the party line? We need to get out of our armchairs. We need to make a difference!

>> ^Truckchase:

So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.


Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.

As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!

On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.

Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"

I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...

>> ^ghark:

I would just point out one thing for @NetRunner - the OWS movement is not the anti-tea party per se, over 70% of them identify as politically independent.
http://occupywallst.org/article/70-percent-ows-supporters-independent/


That doesn't surprise me in the least. Ultimately to me that's the big X-factor about OWS.

My optimist side says this is just the right kind of brew from which a strong, left-leaning 3rd party could arise. Or maybe just an authentic, left-wing version of the Tea Party -- people who don't swear fealty to the Democratic party, but who will force the politicians of both parties to cater to them via the threat of outside challenges in primaries and general elections. At a minimum, maybe it'll just help keep the media talking about the real problems (unemployment, wealth inequality, corporate misdeeds), and not the fake problems (debt, inflation, regulatory "uncertainty").

My cynical side tells me that its heavy resistance to making alliances with either party (including even established liberal groups like MoveOn), as well as its assiduously non-partisan messaging, is ultimately going to prevent it from being more than just a news fad. I'm worried that their somewhat rigid adherence to "independence" winds up meaning they get themselves political isolation, and not political revolution.

I'm hopeful about the potential for OWS to bring about a real reset of the political system, but each day that goes by without them making any attempt to translate the protest's energy into some sort of direct political action (i.e. voting, petitioning, primarying, general strikes, etc.), a bit of that hope fades. If all they ever plan to do is occupy public spaces and wave signs, they're just going to wind up being ignored.

is he saying we can't do anything about wealth inequality? Does that mean he's against minimum wage, unions, social security, food stamps etc???

Above all, please remember it's nothing personal, just the future of our country on the line.

It's not Kenyan, it's "Kenyawaiian". Because Obama's papa was Kenyan, and he (the son) was born in Hawaii. Allegedly.

No one has the time or energy to read--much less list--all the failures of the corrupt regime presently in power, so settle for a single buzz word or two that summarizes the opposition.

I cannot care about the fine tuning between definitions of socialism, marxism and communism, they're all dung from different animals.

Suspend thinking of me (or Blanky) as your idealogical frenemies for a moment and try to see us instead as peeps concerned about fidelity to the Constitution and positive results. I don't give a sh1t about what the Obama regime or liberals in general say they want to do, or claim will happen, my concern is what are the REAL results of following liberal policies such as raising taxes on the wealthy (which then trickle down to us in the form of higher prices and less employment), non-stop government spending of money we don't have and onerous, business-killing regulations.

If this socialist claptrap worked, Europe would have less than permanent double-digit unemployment and less than 4 countries on the verge of economic collapse.

I really don't think you want to go to the tale of the tape (facts-n-sh1t) because from Roosevelt onward, federal tyranny has increased exponentially with the size of the welfare state.

If you want me to stop 'accusing' Obama of being a screw-up, tell him to stop jumping off the same cliff of tried-n-failed socialist baloney with styrofoam wings, then blaming Republicans instead of gravity when he plummets.

I don't say it enough: I wish the left could prove me wrong with examples of success instead of promises that never arrive.





>> ^volumptuous:

What's your point GSF?
Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?
OR
Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?
That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".
No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get at most 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.
So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

What's your point GSF?

Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?

OR

Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?

That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".

No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get *at most* 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.

So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

I think MaxWilder's close, but there's more to it. Check out this graph of American's perceptions of wealth inequality verses reality, and their ideal situation: http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-distribution-of-wealth-perception-vs-reality/

People don't appreciate how much it has skewed. They don't really understand what has happened, and I think the real problem is that the working class which is growing (rather than the middle class) has been sold that it's in their best interests to lose their rights and be denied free health care etc - that the economy will fall over if they do.

There's a great book called 'Deer Hunting with Jesus' - http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Joe+Bageant&sts=t&x=0&y=0

which goes right into the causes of how the Republicans sold the working poor a pup. Worth a look.

Is this kind of rhetoric a defensible use of speech, something he deserves to be criticized for, or something that possibly constitutes a crime?

This is America where the 1st Ammendment says anybody can criticize anyone they want about anything and it does not constitute a crime. I believe in freedom. I would never dare to try to make it a crime for a person to speak their mind on an issue. Such censorship is repulsive to me, and antithetical to a free society. Do I think he 'deserves' criticism? Only in the same sense that anyone 'deserves' to be criticized in a free society for having an opinion.

By comparison, what's your opinion of the historical use of blood libel against Jews? In your opinion, was that a defensible use of speech, something to be merely criticized, or something serious enough to consider a criminal act?

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

All I can hope for is that the right wakes up with a movement that actually cares about the people of America and not the 1% who own 60+% of all capital in the US who would continue to screw everyone over.

I suggest you locate the closest chapter of the Tea Party movement.

Seriously though - what government plan (Democrat OR Republican) has ever resulted in moving that "1% richest" needle? People who get rich get rich, and by definition that means they have tons more money than the average guy. Rich liberals don't give 95% of their wealth to the poor, or gift it to the government for 'fair redistribution' (which means government gets it and the people don't) any more than rich Republicans do. So it is meaningless to blame wealth inequity on 'the right'. Wealth inequality is a factor of the human condition - not any particular political philosophy.

america's high crime rate is due to our crappy selfish citizenry who vote against social services and allow massive wealth inequality.

people don't normally want to live a life of crime, but when you take away all their other options, what's left?