>> ^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?

You're saying you can't buy it out because the price is too high. Government Insiders, etc. etc. etc. I hear you and I agree. Which is why I'm saying these groups are pointless.

We either have to organize ourselves, all the small business owners in America, the middle class, blah blah blah, etc etc etc, and put our money together to do it.

Or hope some radical benevolent dictator military movements seizes control and then doesn't go mad with power and turns it back into a democracy.

Frankly I unfortunately don't think either are likely.

Occupy Wall Street got tons of Money but they didn't' do anything with it. I feel that was a great catalyst for more liberal people and it was squandered.

>> ^DuoJet:

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.
Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.

Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.


>> ^Darkhand:

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.
The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.

The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.


You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.

We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.

Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.

This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

>> ^petpeeved:

The revolution will not have a permit.


There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.

Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.

Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.

Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This guy was ill prepared for Hannity's debate style.


What debate style? The rest of the civilized world laughs at us for this crap.

>> ^legacy0100:

I remember having this conversation with my brother few months ago. I compared the Occupy movement with the Stop SOPA/PIPA movement, and how the Stop SOPA movement was so successful in such short period of time, when Occupy movement has been going on for a longer period of time but couldn't materialize any 'real change'.
For one thing, the occupy movement started out demanding accountability in the bank/finance industry. Then the agenda blew up to having social equality of laborers, minority rights, states rights, environmental rights etc etc. It tried taking in EVERY social reform agenda that was out there, taking the focus away from the original efforts demanding real reform in the financial industry.
Last year I remember Occupy protesters coordinating a march on Martin Luther King Jr day. Now I'm sure this is all a good message, but what does this have to do with Wall Street? This only goes to show that this mass movement is lacking focus, and in desperate need of core representatives, like we did during SOPA/PIPA movement when Reddit.com first lead the march, and other giants such as Wikipedia had moved in.


I think the major success of the SOPA/PIPA protests was that there were several very large corporations like google and facebook supporting and participating in the protests. It made it very hard for the media to ignore and detractors to dismiss the protestors as jobless smelly hippies.

And I think you're right about them losing focus. If they start to include every liberal cause under the sun they're going to alienate a lot of people who support financial reform, but may not support gay marriage, or increased environmental regulations.

While more successful over all, the tea party also lost a lot of support when they started subverting the economic reform message with social conservative agendas.

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


This is in my opinion the biggest victory of those who ruin the country. This opinion is pretty standard, I've heard it all my life on college campuses and even believed it at one point.

I wonder, if you posed the question to Martin Luther King Jr. what his opinion of that would be. I think he'd say that the only reason he could do his job, that he could speak and go to towns and rally people for his cause was because there were hundreds of thousands of people working to make it happen behind the scenes. The tribute we pay is not to those people though, it's to Martin Luther King Jr.

The reason is because they want to make sure and convince you that you cannot do this on your own. That you need a "Special Person" to come forth and fight your battles for you, and lead you to promised land. This is the idea that Obama satisfied with his "Army" of people that weren't to do anything but work to get Obama elected and listen to him, and then that's it. Their job was done, when in a real democracy they'd be working still, putting pressure on Obama to do what he promised and what they put him in for.

This is a great propaganda tool to control people, it works. Until it doesn't, and you have occupy protests everywhere.

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


What about the woman's movement of the 1910s or the civil rights movement of the 1960s?

Letting BoA fail won't do much of anything to prevent other banks from doing what they shouldn't be. And the simple fact is BoA or any corporation that size isn't monolithic. Some people had nothing to do with the fraud, and would lose their jobs.

Not to mention what it would do macroeconomically to the US.

>> ^bookface:

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.
>> ^heropsycho:
You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.

>> ^heropsycho:

You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.

Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?

Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?

Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?

Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?

Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?

There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.

>> ^bookface:

Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Can't make an omelet…

>> ^heropsycho:

I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Explain the idea more please. I am against it, but I want to understand why you think its a good idea.

When I see this I imagine all the shitty cat videos or Fiery hot topics ( news/current events) giving people what they do not deserve, how would a person set a guideline to that ? I would think you can not specify which style of video gets you a page point but the basic numbers would. I would like to know MOARRRRR ! !

*Edit- WHat I mean by "do not deserve " is my self inflicting high standard for a videos General quality : to how many votes it gets. A cat or dog or moose doing something funny is good for a laugh but it doesn't really hold any other merit other than that. I like to think the Cream of the crop should get rewarded for its substance. Although some people put a high priority on such things as "cute" and "adorable " . As for fiery hot topics I mean peoples emotional connection to things like Occupy wall street, the middle east,wars etc. that is a little harder to define for me but I see that as a bandwagon effect, EVERYONE jumps on those videos and to get a badge for posting something off of CNN doesnt hold much merit to me.