• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ok, I've had it with OWS

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
In any case, I wish with all my heart that SOMEbody would at least get it in their heads to field an actual candidate on the Occupy label. Sit-ins will get nothing permanent accomplished; human representation in the government is the only way to begin the just destruction of the lobby corporatocracy.

Besides, any single flea-bitten self-entitled hippy is going to be miles ahead of any of the current GOP candidates in terms of sanity.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The slate of candidates is absolutely depressing. Honestly, is this the best we can do?
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
The slate of candidates is absolutely depressing. Honestly, is this the best we can do?

I really hate not voting, but I don't know what to do anymore. :p

It was already getting bad when I was only just voting against candidates. How do I vote against all of them, now?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I really hate not voting, but I don't know what to do anymore. :p

It was already getting bad when I was only just voting against candidates. How do I vote against all of them, now?

Good question.

Also, here's something perplexing - why does the media do it's BEST to avoid legitimizing Ron Paul, or even recognizing that he's making such a strong showing?

I don't agree with everything that he says, but I think I am going to vote for him. My husband says I am "throwing away my vote" but I don't care - hell, I'm doing that anyway, considering all the low class idiots who are running so far.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Good question.

Also, here's something perplexing - why does the media do it's BEST to avoid legitimizing Ron Paul, or even recognizing that he's making such a strong showing?

I don't agree with everything that he says, but I think I am going to vote for him. My husband says I am "throwing away my vote" but I don't care - hell, I'm doing that anyway, considering all the low class idiots who are running so far.

The only way to throw away a vote any more is to write in a non-existent candidate, like "Jiggly Puff" or "Snoopy". Even then we could argue that vote would be as valid as any other.

I do tend to favor Paul, but I dunno. I'm lost. I need time for more research is all.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The slate of candidates is absolutely depressing. Honestly, is this the best we can do?
On the plus side, it seems no more depressing than usual.
Just look back as recently as 2008.
(I'm not convinced that McCain & Palin would've been any better than Obama & Biden).
<shuddering at the thought>

Maybe this isn't a plus side.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
In any case, I wish with all my heart that SOMEbody would at least get it in their heads to field an actual candidate on the Occupy label. Sit-ins will get nothing permanent accomplished; human representation in the government is the only way to begin the just destruction of the lobby corporatocracy.

Besides, any single flea-bitten self-entitled hippy is going to be miles ahead of any of the current GOP candidates in terms of sanity.
I disagree with the concept of an OWS movement fielding candidates in Democratic nominations, or creating a third party. The point of these movements was to provide a platform to say what has needed to be said for many years now, and has been shut out of consideration by MSM -- the class war still exists, it's getting worse, it's destroying democracy, it's damaging every single measure of quality of life, and the ruling classes have been able to keep these facts from penetrating the consciousness of the majority...up until now.

The smartest thing the Occupy Wall Street did this fall, was refuse to play the game the media and politicos wanted -- a list of demands or suggested policy alternatives. They have been created by many people active in OWS, but as soon as Occupy could be branded or identified from a set of goals, then those become the focus of media and politicians seeking to coopt their message. Many of early organizers were university students who already went through all of the BS about the political process when they became organizers for Obama in 2008....and I don't think they intend to make that mistake again!

The big question is whether democracy will be restored, or we have a continued slide towards oligarchy. If it's the latter, voting and running candidates is a meaningless exercise, and a real revolution may be the only long term solution. One thing I'm sure of, the threat of revolution will have to be there before any oligarchs stop and reconsider the course they have taken over the last 40 years.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I disagree with the concept of an OWS movement fielding candidates in Democratic nominations, or creating a third party. The point of these movements was to provide a platform to say what has needed to be said for many years now, and has been shut out of consideration by MSM -- the class war still exists, it's getting worse, it's destroying democracy, it's damaging every single measure of quality of life, and the ruling classes have been able to keep these facts from penetrating the consciousness of the majority...up until now.
In all fairness, I see it more as a colossal failure of the ultra left-wing overplaying its hand. I also think that the catchy phrase, "We are the 99%", though clever, was also a huge over-reach. They are not the 99%, nor do they speak for the vast majority of the 99%. In their temerity, they pretend that they do and due to lack of critical thinking skills, some folks believed them.

The smartest thing the Occupy Wall Street did this fall, was refuse to play the game the media and politicos wanted -- a list of demands or suggested policy alternatives.
Indeed. It is sheer genius just to protest over the gripe d'jour rather than have any deep and meaningful alternatives.

They have been created by many people active in OWS, but as soon as Occupy could be branded or identified from a set of goals, then those become the focus of media and politicians seeking to coopt their message. Many of early organizers were university students who already went through all of the BS about the political process when they became organizers for Obama in 2008....and I don't think they intend to make that mistake again!
So... what, then. Other than develop a network of like-minded disenfranchised, what precisely have they accomplished? (Other than showing us that they had nothing to offer - whatsoever.)

The big question is whether democracy will be restored, or we have a continued slide towards oligarchy. If it's the latter, voting and running candidates is a meaningless exercise, and a real revolution may be the only long term solution.
Say what? So this "real revolution" will be orchestrated by a bunch of whiners that refuse to take a stand on clear issues with practical solutions? Farking brilliant. Frankly speaking, I don't think most people would allow the OWS nimrods to be in charge of a Popcorn stand, though they may acquiesce to having them serve them unhealthy burgers.

One thing I'm sure of, the threat of revolution will have to be there before any oligarchs stop and reconsider the course they have taken over the last 40 years.
The threat of revolution would require far more bodies to be involved. The #Occupy crowds PRETEND they have wide support, while surely realizing they are on the lunatic fringe. I don't think all that many will want to join them anytime soon because they have NOTHING TO OFFER.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
In all fairness, I see it more as a colossal failure of the ultra left-wing overplaying its hand. I also think that the catchy phrase, "We are the 99%", though clever, was also a huge over-reach. They are not the 99%, nor do they speak for the vast majority of the 99%. In their temerity, they pretend that they do and due to lack of critical thinking skills, some folks believed them.
No, they are the 99%. The mistake is in being too inclusive and not speaking enough about the enablers, who would rather swim in the wake of the rich and powerful, than to challenge their power. Hannah Arendt once said that a fascist government only needs the support of about 10% of the total population to be stable. There is at least 10% of the people who would gladly serve as lackies and flunkies for their masters. It's happened many times before, it happens in many countries now, and it will likely be our future, as the haves do not want any alterations to capitalism, in the face of growing realization that this world is reaching the limits of what the natural economy can provide, and continued economic growth has to come at someone else's expense.

Indeed. It is sheer genius just to protest over the gripe d'jour rather than have any deep and meaningful alternatives.
I was libertarian until reading studies from economists and sociologists for at least the last five years, who have been continually hammering away at the point that the middle and lower classes are losing, while wealth trickles up to the top. This message was completely ignored prior to OWS. So, when the MSM starts running timid stories about the wealth gap, and Obama and other Democrats try to coopt the point for their own political purposes, that is the most important function that Occupy can perform. The one thing they need to do, and are being prevented in a ruthless and brutal fashion right now, is to maintain the public spaces where people of all walks of life can gather and share their stories and meet with others who are struggling with debt, losing jobs, losing houses etc.. It is the education of the casual onlookers at OWS, who thought they were all alone and didn't understand how the system was being gamed to use against them...retaking public space is what they need to focus on above all else...and that's why the Borg is ruthlessly suppressing these efforts, even assaulting reporters who cover the demonstrations....something unheard of before in America. That sort of thing didn't even go on in the turbulent 60's, during the Vietnam War and Civil Rights demonstrations. But now, the oligarchs are determined to keep news video footage of cops assaulting demonstrators out of the news cycle. This sort of thing was something we thought only happened in third world dictatorships...but now it's come to our shores!

So... what, then. Other than develop a network of like-minded disenfranchised, what precisely have they accomplished? (Other than showing us that they had nothing to offer - whatsoever.)

Say what? So this "real revolution" will be orchestrated by a bunch of whiners that refuse to take a stand on clear issues with practical solutions? Farking brilliant. Frankly speaking, I don't think most people would allow the OWS nimrods to be in charge of a Popcorn stand, though they may acquiesce to having them serve them unhealthy burgers.
So, we know where you stand, and who's side you'll be on when goon squads are signed up by the new fascists!

The threat of revolution would require far more bodies to be involved. The #Occupy crowds PRETEND they have wide support, while surely realizing they are on the lunatic fringe. I don't think all that many will want to join them anytime soon because they have NOTHING TO OFFER.
The threat of revolution will come from outside of OWS, and if such a thing happens, then all bets are off about what sort of revolutionary regime would follow. Wars, civil wars, and any sorts of violent conflicts always elevate the most violent and ruthless and psychotic among the population. Rarely does a revolutionary leader not want to become the new despot to replace the old despot.

But, pacifism does not work as effectively as pacifists think it does. The successful movements, such as MLK and the Civil Rights Movement, or Gandhi's movement to liberate India, did not convince the powers to accede to their demands by being human punching bags. In both cases, there were violent paramilitary groups who advocated guns rather than peace signs. The compromise that led to the U.S. Government acceding to the rights agenda of MLK came because of the threat of the Black Panthers, and increasing radicalization of the Black Community in the U.S.. If not for them, the Johnson Administration, and those who were sympathetic to Civil Rights would have been shot down by the supporters of the status quo...who could have said:' what do we care how many demonstrators MLK brings to the Washington Mall?' They'll all have to go home again and nothing has to change.' It was the threat of something stronger than pacifists that changed their minds! As a sidenote: Nelson Mandela spent most of the last 20 years wasting away in a South African prison because he refused to sign a pledge that the ANC would not use violence to overthrow the Apartheid Government. He was not a revolutionary himself, but he did not want that option taken from the table by the Apartheid leaders who had already decided years earlier that Mandela was the one they would have to negotiate with eventually.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
No, they are the 99%.
Rubbish. For the most part, they are the political lunatic fringe and you know it.

The mistake is in being too inclusive and not speaking enough about the enablers, who would rather swim in the wake of the rich and powerful, than to challenge their power. Hannah Arendt once said that a fascist government only needs the support of about 10% of the total population to be stable. There is at least 10% of the people who would gladly serve as lackies and flunkies for their masters.
I have heard the drivel repeated fairly often these last several weeks and it is not impressive. The point is, our current "master" (if you must) may need a trip to the woodshed, but those who pretend to speak for the #occupy "movement" are simply masters-in-waiting and I find their message to be wanting. I'm glad you find it edifying. Frankly, I'd rather stick with the devil I already know rather than risk the future on a bunch of people who cannot even articulate their positions lest anyone hold them to it... or ask for some kind of workable solutions...

It's happened many times before, it happens in many countries now, and it will likely be our future, as the haves do not want any alterations to capitalism, in the face of growing realization that this world is reaching the limits of what the natural economy can provide, and continued economic growth has to come at someone else's expense.
Personally, I don't see it as a bona fide "movement" per se. Time will tell. My guess is that the silent majority will eventually tire of the antics of the idle who are behaving like you would expect spoiled children to behave. Then... they are toast.

I was libertarian until reading studies from economists and sociologists for at least the last five years, who have been continually hammering away at the point that the middle and lower classes are losing, while wealth trickles up to the top.
Obviously, however, HOW DO YOU CHANGE THAT without bringing down the system completely. And if you completely destroy that system, what would you replace it with. How long would it take? Would we all ask ourselves why we bothered 10 years down the road?

This message was completely ignored prior to OWS.
Probably because it is a somewhat vapid message, stating the obvious. Again - HOW DO YOU CHANGE THAT?

The one thing they need to do, and are being prevented in a ruthless and brutal fashion right now, is to maintain the public spaces where people of all walks of life can gather and share their stories and meet with others who are struggling with debt, losing jobs, losing houses etc..
Oh good grief. Ruthless? Brutal? Bending over backwards to accommodate a bunch of whiners might be a better description. What this alleged "99%" doesn't realize is that the REAL 99% are not very impressed with their antics and do not see this as a realistic vehicle to enact change. It is a toothless wannabe "revolution" of the pampered and privileged who have little understanding of what it means to have nothing.

It is the education of the casual onlookers at OWS, who thought they were all alone and didn't understand how the system was being gamed to use against them...retaking public space is what they need to focus on above all else...
It is difficult to think that someone actually thinks that this is a meaningful act, let alone being a priority. It strikes me as intellectual bankruptcy.

and that's why the Borg is ruthlessly suppressing these efforts, even assaulting reporters who cover the demonstrations....something unheard of before in America.
I doubt that this is an official position of police organizations - to harm reporters intentionally. Personally, I haven't heard of any reporters getting hurt by the cops in any city. Link?

That sort of thing didn't even go on in the turbulent 60's, during the Vietnam War and Civil Rights demonstrations. But now, the oligarchs are determined to keep news video footage of cops assaulting demonstrators out of the news cycle. This sort of thing was something we thought only happened in third world dictatorships...but now it's come to our shores!
Oh good grief. No doubt they are murdering them in the streets as we speak, right?

So, we know where you stand, and who's side you'll be on when goon squads are signed up by the new fascists!
Oddly, I see the #occupy crowd as the new wannabe fascists. Go ahead, call me silly. I have broad shoulders. (It must be from swimming in the wake of the 1% for all these years.) :facepalm:

The threat of revolution will come from outside of OWS, and if such a thing happens, then all bets are off about what sort of revolutionary regime would follow.
Um, ok. But, just the same, you are happy destabilizing everything possible to ensure such a real revolution can occur. That's fricken spiffy.

Wars, civil wars, and any sorts of violent conflicts always elevate the most violent and ruthless and psychotic among the population. Rarely does a revolutionary leader not want to become the new despot to replace the old despot.
This, in a nutshell, is what worries me about the #occupy whiners. I've seen enough to understand that one should be careful what they wish for, as they just might get it.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
On the plus side, it seems no more depressing than usual.
Just look back as recently as 2008.
(I'm not convinced that McCain & Palin would've been any better than Obama & Biden).
<shuddering at the thought>

Maybe this isn't a plus side.

Oh I would have just curled up in a fetal position for four years if McCain/Palin were in office.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Oh I would have just curled up in a fetal position for four years if McCain/Palin were in office.
I don't know how bad they'd be.
I mainly feared the risk of more war, which would offset the likelihood that they'd be better economically.
A real gamble no matter who won.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I disagree with the concept of an OWS movement fielding candidates in Democratic nominations, or creating a third party. The point of these movements was to provide a platform to say what has needed to be said for many years now, and has been shut out of consideration by MSM -- the class war still exists, it's getting worse, it's destroying democracy, it's damaging every single measure of quality of life, and the ruling classes have been able to keep these facts from penetrating the consciousness of the majority...up until now.

The smartest thing the Occupy Wall Street did this fall, was refuse to play the game the media and politicos wanted -- a list of demands or suggested policy alternatives. They have been created by many people active in OWS, but as soon as Occupy could be branded or identified from a set of goals, then those become the focus of media and politicians seeking to coopt their message. Many of early organizers were university students who already went through all of the BS about the political process when they became organizers for Obama in 2008....and I don't think they intend to make that mistake again!

The big question is whether democracy will be restored, or we have a continued slide towards oligarchy. If it's the latter, voting and running candidates is a meaningless exercise, and a real revolution may be the only long term solution. One thing I'm sure of, the threat of revolution will have to be there before any oligarchs stop and reconsider the course they have taken over the last 40 years.
I must respectfully disagree. Anarchy is a useless political concept and we live, as a unit, in a world where the idea is that we live in a democratic republic; representative government and all that Enlightenment stuff.

The only real way to change is to enter the game and beat the rest, preferably with brickbats and fists, and get them all out.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
I recently met a 99%er. A bit more radical than the ones I met a few months ago. The guy talked as if we hadn't left the 60's, talking about the slaves and the master and "the man". How "we must oppucy everything" because it already belonged to us.

I thought the guy was just a little of his rocker.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
I must respectfully disagree. Anarchy is a useless political concept and we live, as a unit, in a world where the idea is that we live in a democratic republic; representative government and all that Enlightenment stuff.
It was anarchy at the beginning of the 20th century that led to concessions such as legalized trade unions. The carrot isn't of much value without the threat of the stick. And the democratic government has become increasingly a showpiece....a meaningless exercise, as the really important decisions are made in backrooms by advocates representing major corporations, and handed off to the politicos to turn into legislation.

The main reason why I think holding public space is important, is that it is the way for a movement to coalesce and come together. There will be different interests within the movement, so once a goal is achieved (say getting rid of Mubarak in Egypt), then the democracy movement has to deal with internal divisions afterwards if they have the chance to form a government....which doesn't seem to be happening in Egypt anyway! Regardless, if I compare the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements in America, there is so much education that needs to be done here to inform a mostly clueless public about how their economic system really works...and why it works to their detriment.
The only real way to change is to enter the game and beat the rest, preferably with brickbats and fists, and get them all out.
That would only be true in a real democratic system....not the one we have now which is weighted by money. The problem isn't the politicians -- it's the system that is constrained by a small number of very powerful interests. Any politician who wants to get re-elected in most districts will have to bend or face an onslaught of negative advertising, negative spin in the corporate media and internal opposition from others in the party who think their jobs are put at risk by a maverick who doesn't play ball.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Rubbish. For the most part, they are the political lunatic fringe and you know it.
The numbers don't lie! Do you want to pull up some numbers on what's happened to various income levels over the past 30 years to back up the right wing propaganda? Explain to me why wealth isn't trickling down, as claimed by supply-siders back when the claims of Friedmanomics were still relatively fresh and new?

I've tried to explain to a few other faith-based libertarians that economics is not a religion. You don't get to just make up your own facts like Ayn Rand did. They either have evidence or they don't; and the evidence supports the case that only the wealthiest have benefited from an economic system that accords more wealth and power upon those who already have it.
 
Top