*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 8:42pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

mm yes, delicious irony.

upvote for exposing the hypocrisy in what has been said, but let's keep in mind that there is a huge difference in scale between the repression in Middle Eastern and North African states, and the repression of protesters in the US and the EU.

Hyperbole is a dangerous tool, to use with care lest it backfire.

From the authors comments on YT:

I appreciate your thoughts, just wanna be sure all is clear with the video. It is NOT a comparison, rather a WARNING that if the police keep repressing people's rights, America COULD turn into Egypt. If the police arrest the War Vets who risked their lives to protect the police, how long can you Americans stand for this?! It is their blood that makes USA possible. All americans should agree and demand a stop to arrests now. The First amendment trumps local ordinances.
CoreyOgilvie 1 hour ago

>> ^hpqp:

upvote for exposing the hypocrisy in what has been said, but let's keep in mind that there is a huge difference in scale between the repression in Middle Eastern and North African states, and the repression of protesters in the US and the EU.
Hyperbole is a dangerous tool, to use with care lest it backfire.


Upvote for vitally important comment. I'll add myself as one of those disgusted by cries of brotherhood with the Arab spring in their protests demanding we not waste our money saving the very lives of those involved in the Arab spring in Libya. Selfish fools attach themselves to everything, don't give them the chance to become the figureheads for this.

Or perhaps a simpler request, some pictures of the dead bodies in Syria and Libya to go along with the protesters over here getting pepper sprayed or occasionally held overnight in jail.

It's almost like America is a plutocracy that pretends to be democratic...

I see you didn't use the sarcasm feature. So I offer this comment...



"Almost"??

>> ^Peroxide:

It's almost like America is a plutocracy that pretends to be democratic...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/11-6

I'm not sure what to make of this video, really. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

In Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Iran, the mere act of protesting was declared illegal. IIRC, in all four of those countries, violence was the only police response to protests, and in all four countries it escalated to police/military/paramilitary forces firing bullets at protesters.

That's not happening here.

In Egypt, the police didn't really crack down on the protests themselves. There were attempts to use agents provocateur to provoke violence to give the police some cause to shut down the protests, but that never worked. There were some touch and go moments when it seemed that the police were going to try to storm Tahrir square to forcibly end the protest, but that never happened (largely because the military stepped in and made sure that didn't happen). The result of the protests and accompanying strikes ended up toppling the Mubarak regime.

In America, things are a bit different. People who want to uphold the status quo want the protests ignored, and they know that violence and arrests will only help the protesters in the long run. So the OWS people have had to resort to a little provocation of their own. It's noble and self-sacrificing that they're doing so, and it does make the police look bad when they arrest people for innocuous sounding things (like directly protesting in on the steps of the NYSE itself, or blocking a bridge), but they're intentionally doing so to draw attention. It's called civil disobedience.

So really, I'm left a bit confused by the video. The title of the video is "I'm not moving", but spends a ton of time highlighting police violence at the protests here and abroad (and it's mostly abroad). When they finally show the guy who says he's not moving, they don't show him getting arrested or beaten, they just hear him begging to get arrested, and seemingly being ignored.

So is the point "I have a point to make that I'm willing to get arrested for" (i.e. "I'm Not Moving") or is the point "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hypocritical tyrants because the police arrest me when I intentionally try to get arrested to make a point."

You can't really have it both ways.

@NetRunner

I agree that OWS and the Arab Spring are two completely different things.

I see this video more as a warning to the corporatist ruling class--than as a view of what is actually happening now--or, even will happen.

No, America is not Libya--and these protests won't become an armed revolution (if they tried I'd help to stop them).

In short, this video is not news, or a documentary. To me this video is a statement of conviction and purpose.

Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.

The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators(HIP), with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.

The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

>> ^Payback:

Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.


So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.

It makes me sad. I hope Americans take back the country they had before 9/11... and I hope the UK stops aspiring to be America now, before it's too late.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.


Never said I was talking about elected officials.

>> ^Payback:

Never said I was talking about elected officials.


very nice comment, though I guess dictator is the wrong word. plutocracy is better.

Hard to believe that such a cynic as Hilary could be so naive.


'Their universal rights...' to kill westerners, suppress women, strap bombs to their kids.


I don't believe it is anyone's right to block the street or shit on police cars.

Also it is not a requirement to read someone's their rights unless they are to be questioned regarding their crime.

Very manipulative and deceptive video...well made, though!

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.

Never said I was talking about elected officials.


No head examination for you then!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.

Never said I was talking about elected officials.

No head examination for you then!


Arg, Sylar has returned!

they arrest the 'I'm not moving' guy at around 3:52, you can see them holding him up by his pants if I'm not mistaken

You have the right to conduct peaceful assembly. You want to protest, protest all you want. But when you start causing disruptions to others daily life you are, as netrunner said, - conducting civil disobedience.
I'm not saying that police officers don't overstep their bounds. They do it all the time. But there's a big difference between a woman getting wrongfully arrested, stripped naked and being forced to clothe herself in toilet paper and what's going on here. There's an even bigger difference between this and any Arab uprising. As soon as I see an OWS protester shoot video of a government sniper right before the sniper kills him - I'll change my mind. But if you're sitting in the street with out a permit and a police officer tells you to move and you don't move - You get arrested. Shocking!

The girl at 4:30 made me laugh. You're being detained for failure to comply - My guess is the officer told her and she didn't listen. You don't need your rights read to you because you are not under arrest. She'd be taken to the station and be arrested there or put into detention to cool down. At which point they would read her her rights. Most likely she got a ticket with a notice to appear and sent on her way. Sounds pretty harsh to me.

>> ^ghark:

Arg, Sylar has returned!
they arrest the 'I'm not moving' guy at around 3:52, you can see them holding him up by his pants if I'm not mistaken


Ahh, I missed that. They do so many fast, disjointed cuts I didn't even connect those images together as being the same guy.

Still, my original point stands -- if you're intentionally trying to get arrested to make a point, why make a stink about it working? Why try to conflate being carried off with being tear gassed, beaten, or shot? Why try to pretend it's Obama and Hillary calling the shots about what the police are doing at Zuccotti Park?

If your point is "I have a message about the economy they want to silence", why give so little time to that economic message?

It just seems off to me. Seems like they're trying to make it into something it's not.

I guess for someone sympathetic to or participating in these protests, it's uplifting to draw parallels between the remarkable bravery of the Arab protestors of last spring and one's own cause, but I can't bear to watch the juxtaposition of that guy begging to be arrested and people actually risking their lives for what they believe in. Protest all you want, but keep things in perspective. This is tasteless propaganda and risks making the OWS protesters look naïve.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Arg, Sylar has returned!
they arrest the 'I'm not moving' guy at around 3:52, you can see them holding him up by his pants if I'm not mistaken

Ahh, I missed that. They do so many fast, disjointed cuts I didn't even connect those images together as being the same guy.
Still, my original point stands -- if you're intentionally trying to get arrested to make a point, why make a stink about it working? Why try to conflate being carried off with being tear gassed, beaten, or shot? Why try to pretend it's Obama and Hillary calling the shots about what the police are doing at Zucotti Park?
If your point is "I have a message about the economy they want to silence", why give so little time to that economic message?
It just seems off to me. Seems like they're trying to make it into something it's not.


They're trying to stir people up and make them angry. They think it helps their cause and promotes 'awareness'. IMHO, they are idiots. They detract from the real message the rest have as their cause.

>> ^bcglorf:

They're trying to stir people up and make them angry. They think it helps their cause and promotes 'awareness'. IMHO, they are idiots. They detract from the real message the rest have as their cause.


I guess my own suspicion leans more towards this being from some anarchist attempting to co-opt the message of the protest for their own purposes.

I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....

I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

The words used to describe and the coverage given to two groups of people who feel they are being wronged and are not being represented in their respective governments are what I notice most.

Americans who complain and protest are whiners and unpatriotic.

Foreigners who complain and protest (revolt even) are in need of support from all leaders across the world.

Where as I see it in Egypt and other emerging potentially democratic nations are directly beneficial to the people of those countries, and maybe offer some long term goal of world stability bringing mindsets of the people closer to those of other democracy based nations.

Versus America where having the "leaders" of this country get on board and listening is almost unfathomable at this moment, if other nations leaders are calling for aiding the OWS I have never seen this, and if there were a push to address the virtually unrepresented people who are fueling these protests it would benefit other people of the US or at least be discussed to find what would be. Also have the added benefit of hopefully stabilizing the economy, restoring some consumer confidence (it's seems to be a huge unquantifiable factor in the economy from my perspective) that SOMEONE is going to make sure this never happens again, and would in turn benefit the rest of the world's economies since we're all tied together now in more ways than I can put words to.

>> ^ghark:

I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.


Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?

I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.


Do

>> ^ghark:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do


Do what?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do

Do what?


Have they done anything?

Perhaps me and you can form a slightly-bi partisan committee and vote on what should be done?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do

Do what?

Have they done anything?
Perhaps me and you can form a slightly-bi partisan committee and vote on what should be done?


Obama basically destroyed all of his popularity and good will trying to put in publicly funded healthcare. He destroyed even more of his good will supporting the Arab spring opposition in Libya by using American air power to prevent their genocide.

Presumably both those actions show solidarity and empathy for the underprivileged.

Even without that, if you are advocating for change you don't get to shrug your shoulders when asked what change to make. Be as specific as possible too, or you'll be given the letter of what you asked and told to be content while receiving nothing like what you wanted.

If I'm to make my own contribution in a by-partisan fashion my only vehement request would be that we ask for nothing too drastic. For all the faults and failures in America's structures, they are still near the very, very top of what people have achieved for themselves in any nation anywhere. Don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water as the Tea Partiers are so eager to do.

M'eh - I'll say it again. The OWS guys are angry at the wrong target. They are like a guy who blames his apartment's supervisor for the policies of his landlord.

As I am the most brilliant person I know, I'll just quote myself...

"The FED jacked around the rates. The FED changed Glass-Steagall. The FED told banks they would back ARMs. So in the year 2000, some doofus who earned only 30K a year could walk into a bank to find a literal smorgasboard of million dollar loans he legally qualified which would have laughed him out of the bank in 1995.

Some banks acted conservatively in the bubble and many others chose to do the risky (but still legal) loans. Just like how there were borrowers who behaved conservatively during the bubble, and others who took the risky (but legal) option. The problem was that the number of conservative players was a lot smaller than the risk-takers.

The banks were stupid to take so many risks. People were stupid to take out so many loans. But it was GOVERNMENT that engineered the whole mess. They are the primary offender in this picture. The Federal Government. If government had not interfered in the market, then the whole mess would never have happened."

Cain hit the nail on the head when he said the protesters should be at the White House. The problem is that the OWS crowd is primarily composed of a bunch of fringe, left-wing dupes and they only go where their prog-lib pipers order them to go.

@bcglorf - neither of those examples you gave are responses to the American protests, and that's all that's relevant to this video. On the flip-side, OWS would like to see your 0 and raise you 5:

In NYC: Mayor Bloomberg has forcibly tried (and failed) to evict the protesters from the park (with riot police) so that they don't have to put up with them any more. They were going to be allowed back after a clean, but not with sleeping bags or equipment and with a ban on lieing down! This would have breached the protesters first amendment rights.

In Denver: More reports of police brutality, with protesters surrounded and dispersed with riot police, media tents also being torn down

In DC: 6 protesters arrested on charges of "unlawful conduct" for protesting in Capitol building

In Trenton: Plain clothes officers seize equipment and computers

On Wall Street itself: Worker ID's are now required to walk down the street

Obama is listening, but he's not listening to the protesters, instead he's listening to his military advisers, with a recent announcement that America will be sending troops to Central Africa to "fight against the Lord's Resistance Army" (no joke, look it up). 369,000 troops in 150 countries was not enough apparently.

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf - neither of those examples you gave are responses to the American protests, and that's all that's relevant to this video. What has happened instead is that the Mayor has forcibly tried (and failed) to evict the protesters from the park (with riot police) so that they don't have to put up with them any more. The saga continues!


What, because they were proactive measures they don't count? Isn't it better if there are signs that parts of Gov. were already steering in a similar direction before the protests? Or do you not accept my examples as addressing the same things?

Okay, now you're just being ignorant. Nothing about these protests have ended the Republican obstructionism. They're dismissing or badmouthing these protests.

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

So why not focus on the hypocrisy of the Republicans? They've been utterly offensive with what they've been saying about these protests, but they were saying all sorts of nice things about the Arab Spring.

Wouldn't that be more conducive to the protest's goals?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do

Do what?

Have they done anything?
Perhaps me and you can form a slightly-bi partisan committee and vote on what should be done?

@bcglorf bombing a country into submission 'proactively' counts as taking action on behalf of demonstrators that are, in part, protesting against these immoral wars?

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf bombing a country into submission 'proactively' counts as taking action on behalf of demonstrators that are, in part, protesting against these immoral wars?


The Libyan Arab spring protesters would already be buried in mass graves were it not for the NATO air cover. The OWS crowd can NOT claim any manner of solidarity with the Arab spring protesters by claiming suffering and unjust use of their money to save the Arab spring protester's lives.

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.

Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-libya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/

The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html

By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.

>> ^ghark:

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.
Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-li
bya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/
The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world
/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html
By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.


So your view on Libya is that Gaddafi didn't leave behind any mass graves, was not on the verge of prosecuting a genocide that he had publicly announced his intentions for, AND there are actual mass graves in Libya but only those dug by the rebels opposing Gaddafi?

So you support Gaddafi then. History won't remember your side well.

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

Obama's "plans" (when he has them) are so awful, so incompetent, and so ill-designed that even the Democrats won't vote for them. Obama's so-called 'Job Bill' (really a tax bill) went up for a vote in the Senate last week. The Democrats still control the Senate. So - there was nothing stopping Obama's tax bill from passing the Senate because there was no way the GOP could 'obstruct' it. Awwww - guess what happened? The DEMOCRATS voted against it and it went down in flames because it is just a bunch of stupid ideas he has had fried into his brain between crack hits in college.

And leave us not forget - the Democrats had control of the House for the first 3 years of Obama's presidence, as well as a super-majority of the Senate. GOP 'obstructionism' when they don't control any branch of government? Aside from piddling proceedural delays, the GOP couldn't do squat for almost 30 months. But their agenda was so lousy that even with that majority they were having difficulty not because of the GOP, but because even Democrats couldn't agree with the awful ideas being rammed out by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

And as far as the OWS dummies go... You think Obama sees them as anything except useful idiots he can exploit? Most of the things the OWS dislikes were done by Obama and his cronies. Bailouts? Obama. Crony capitalism? Obama. Shielding corporate interests? Obama. Pushing costs onto customer instead of companies? Obama.

Implying that Obama would be able to 'fix everything' if only you get wid of those wascally Wepubwicans is absolute balderdash. The entire political class is to blame - not the GOP as if it was the only party that was corrupt. The way to 'fix' this is to elect Tea Party candidates like Perry or Ron Paul who want to gut government like a sea bass. Cut government down and you remove the ability of companies to 'crony' up to anyone. We don't need a 3 trillion dollar government to fix this. We just need simple, common-sense rules that are ENFORCED and not filled with loopholes that get re-written every election depending on who is in office.

There is no GOP obstructionism. That is a prog-lib myth.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

@ghark there's a lot of what you're saying that I agree with, but still you've got this false equivalency thing going. Democrats are not winning the fight against corporate plutocracy. That is not the same thing as fighting for corporate plutocracy.

Equating the two doesn't help you get anywhere in changing the political landscape, it just has the effect of demoralizing people sympathetic to your cause, and getting them to drop out of the political process entirely.

Now one can hypothesize that the Democrats aren't winning because they're taking a dive. But that flies in the face of the facts. They passed HCR, bank regulation, repeal of DADT, etc. You seem to be buying into the line that HCR is some victory for the corporations, or that Dodd-Frank made the banks stronger, and that nobody at all in Washington is doing anything worth praising. That's just not true. Those are right-wing talking points. That's what Republicans want people to believe.

I agree that you shouldn't think that voting for Democrats means you can sit back, and they'll just fix everything for you. No, if you want to really make some sweeping changes, you need to form a broad-based political movement that changes the minds and mood of the public. You need a movement that keeps Democrats on the straight and narrow, and puts pressure on Republicans to mend their ways.

I hope Occupy Wall Street will be that kind of movement. I certainly think they've had a positive effect so far.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

M'eh - I'll say it again. The OWS guys are angry at the wrong target. They are like a guy who blames his apartment's supervisor for the policies of his landlord.
As I am the most brilliant person I know, I'll just quote myself...
"The FED jacked around the rates. The FED changed Glass-Steagall. The FED told banks they would back ARMs. So in the year 2000, some doofus who earned only 30K a year could walk into a bank to find a literal smorgasboard of million dollar loans he legally qualified which would have laughed him out of the bank in 1995.
Some banks acted conservatively in the bubble and many others chose to do the risky (but still legal) loans. Just like how there were borrowers who behaved conservatively during the bubble, and others who took the risky (but legal) option. The problem was that the number of conservative players was a lot smaller than the risk-takers.
The banks were stupid to take so many risks. People were stupid to take out so many loans. But it was GOVERNMENT that engineered the whole mess. They are the primary offender in this picture. The Federal Government. If government had not interfered in the market, then the whole mess would never have happened."
Cain hit the nail on the head when he said the protesters should be at the White House. The problem is that the OWS crowd is primarily composed of a bunch of fringe, left-wing dupes and they only go where their prog-lib pipers order them to go.


@winston_pennypacker
LOL..awesome.
wait..you are being serious?
duuuuude.
check your facts brother.
who "owns" the FED?
ill give ya a hint..it aint the federal government.
and look into WHO lobbied for class steagal to be recinded/revised.

i find it interesting how tea party folks say that OWS is angry at the wrong people.that they should be angry at the government.
i can agree with that ..in part.
but to ignore the massive influence,corruption and outright theft of our political system by the corporate elite is JUST as naive.
for 30 years both have built a relationship that has become so entwined and entrenched that BOTH need a serious enema.
a plutocracy that has become a machine that enables each other to perpetuate the status quo.

the tea partiers,the original tea party,not the corporate sponsored koch brother bullshit machine,and OWS are both correct in their anger.
wall street for their BLATANT disregard for the law and outright LIES and FRAUD which has been swept under the rug by a government THEY (meaning wall street) PAID for.

the tea party should head down to every occupy protest,join hands with those folks and REALLY start making the whores we call "politicians" start peeing their pants.
because NOTHING gets a government,crown,leader or grand poo-ba crapping himself than a few thousand really pissed of citizens.

but that aint gonna happen because my country still has a majority of retards who buy in to the whole "rightwing nutbag","neo-lib socialist"..blah blah blah.

bullshit fed to the masses in an easy to swallow diatribe broadcast on a media that was bought by the very people fucking you in the ass for 3 decades.

americas propaganda machine is by far one of the most effective.
/rant off