No, that was my own assessment of the movement, and it seems to have borne out. What is the OWS movement doing today beyond vandalism and petty thuggery?





Yes, there were some good points made, and a whole lot of bad ones as well. They spoke as one cacophony and it is that lack of coherency or cohesive strategy (as well as a terrible image problem) that ultimately led to their downfall. Even the founders of the movement agree:

"But even Adbusters, the 'culture-jamming' magazine that help spawn the original Wall Street occupation, says that things have changed dramatically for the movement. "Our movement is living through a painful rebirth..." began its frontpage essay this week, and then quoted a Zuccoti park regular who declared, "We are facing a nauseating poverty of ideas.”"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/07

From crowds of 15k to 75 people, it seems to be all over but the shouting

Occupy Wall Street: Dead in 213 Days

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/10552

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:
...this is a movement without any cohesive message or objective..."
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp
-content/uploads/2011/10/no-message-occupy-wall-street.png
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.
com/files/2011/11/ows-message-murdoch-e1322660861906.jpg
I know you're not a lib, but have you really swallowed that Fox media message?

>> ^Trancecoach:

try that shit in a sports bar....


AdBusters, which was one of the sources of inspiration for the whole Occupy movement promoted this "universal off" remote - one click, cycle through dozens of models... lulz.

Ah, here it is!

http://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_main.php

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

>> ^Bruti79:

Actually, it was Canada who started OWS. Go go Ad Busters.
ducks back into his Canuck hole =)


I love adbusters, I even have a pair of Blackspot boots sitting on my shelf.

Oh WP, that vine swings both ways. Just do me a favor and try not to cover those of us in the middle with the fecal rhetoric while you feel the need to sling it out with "the far left fringe"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.
Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.
But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstre
et-the-rap-sheet-so-far/
It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard
Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.
And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.
The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.
So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.

Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.

But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard

Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.

And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.

The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.

So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

Man, I havent even thought about Adbusters since I was in college a decade ago. Had no idea that they coined the name... its a good mag too bad I havent read it and viewed its pretty art in a long while.

Adbusters is hosting a live stream.

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet

Obama is spending too much time protecting people who torture helpless human beings and Wall St. fat cats to ever care about anything else.

BULLSHIT.
source:
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/96/chris-hedges-revolution-in-america.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk.

On that narrow subject, I agree.

Otherwise, Paul doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. In Paul's example, anyone who just thinks for a few minutes about why he's wrong.

Guy with $200k/yr job, and has $300k in existing debt, and loses his job. Paul neglects to mention assets. Generally speaking, people don't take out loans, and then light the borrowed money on fire. If the guy has $300k debt on a mortgage for a home worth $1 million, he's actually in pretty good shape fiscally speaking, though he may have to sell his house. If he can get a million dollar loan even in that situation, say to start a business, he'll probably have a negative net worth for a few years, but it seems to me that if he can get a million dollar loan for a business in that situation, people believe he will be able to make it work...

Same applies with his insinuation that we should subtract debt from GDP. This is like saying that the only number you should look at to judge your financial situation in your private life is your yearly salary, minus all of your debts. That's seriously negative for me, while a homeless unemployed guy would be only $0. Is the homeless guy really better off than me?

The adbusters clip implies that there should be a social utility factor involved in our measurements of economic growth, otherwise we have perverse incentives that lead us into broken window fallacies (e.g. cigarettes are awesome because not only are they profitable in their own right, they also boost sales in the lung cancer treatment industry). Paul makes that argument too, but he myopically picks an example that's government-specific (i.e. war), when it's a problem all over the place in private industry too.

Common ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk. Reminds me of an adbusters spot on the subject:

I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk. Reminds me of an adbusters spot on the subject:

I've been reading No Logo and it's got a fair amount in it about adbusting and using art to change advertisements to reclaim the streets again for the people. It's interesting, I have seen Trolling that can be very artistic or creative and just plain well done. Never thought of it as art but when I have done it I do work very hard to make it well written and creative to get a laugh out of even those who I'm trolling.

What's the point of living longer if you can't nit-pick every little detail you come across? =)

>> ^Trancecoach:
^Good adbusting, guys!

^Good adbusting, guys!