OCCUPY WALL STREET - Spreading

brianlux

RW81233 wrote:

yes I saw that...there is hope, especially as the cops start realizing they are a part of us. i'm excited at the possibilities that OWS has given us, but I really want it to be a longstanding part of the discussion in the year's ahead. I don't want to look back at this the way older people look back at '68 as a missed opportunity. We can't miss this opportunity, and I'm concerned.

Re. the statement in bold above- excellent point and I vouch for that thought. I look back on '68 as a missed opportunity. Many boomers my age don't bother to look back at all and far too many will give you a million reasons why they are too busy to get involved once again today. Your concern is quite valid but your opportunity is still very much alive.

(Gee sorry- that last sentence sounds like a fortune cookie )

Jason P

OWS ... spreading or receding??? Any witnesses care to report?

I'm too far off in the sticks to know ... I witnessed a local Occupy Main Street event which consisted of a broke-down tractor which blocked traffic for 30 minutes.

ajedigecko

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

To be clear I haven't actually heard of any violence at these protests outside of tony bologna pepper spraying the protesters, and a few other incidents that were similar. What I am wondering is what 'peaceful' protest is going to get done? What would violent protest get done? I'm, admittedly, not sure, but I think that the latter would be more successful in exacting the changes we need.

Ok... but you also said...

RW81233 wrote:

am I the only one who wants this shit to get ultraviolent?

Call me crazy, but that appears to be advocating violence. Whoops.... pardon me, that appears to be advocating ultraviolence.

I wrote the first one last night under the influence of alcohol...shouldn't have presented it in that way for sure. Just got fired up by watching some of the media reax to the protests. I guess what I am asking is what are we trying to accomplish through OWS and what will enable that change? For those who are against violence (that's a valid way to move forward) how will non-violence get the change to happen? For those of us who think maybe violence is an answer where would it need to be directed? Who would need to be held responsible? Would violence actually be better than non-violence?

oh yeah.....the ole' "i was drunk" card. i forgot about that one. i will be sure to use it, the next time.

pandora

56 arrests last night ... I believe peaceful
thank goodness

Sanitation crews are cleaning the park before it reopens

protestors said they would be back

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

OWS ... spreading or receding??? Any witnesses care to report?

I'm too far off in the sticks to know ... I witnessed a local Occupy Main Street event which consisted of a broke-down tractor which blocked traffic for 30 minutes.

Who knows? I'm sure the supporters would say growing, and others would say not. The fact is, they are still there, and I give them credit if they make it through the next couple months.

But, I live close to the OWS, and it affects me and everyone else I come into contact 0, so it really doesn't exist. It's sort of like if a tree falls in the woods....

Keep hanging out in the park. They've already cost NYC over $3 million in police OT. So, they'll begin to anger a few more people when the realities of what they are ACTUALLY accomplishing starts directly affecting people. Though, I'm sure the families of those police officers will thank them when they have the happiest Christmas in a long time.

Monster Rain

So what will these protests accomplish if the allegations turn out to be true that the NYCC (which is basically ACORN now that ACORN was exposed and some offices closed--same office and many of the same staffers) is paying people $100/day to stand at the protests all day, paying homeless people $10/hour to protest, and having people go door-to-door to collect money for various causes (such as saying they're collecting money for the United Federation of Teachers to test for PCBs in schools) when they are really giving the money to Occupy Wall Street? These reports are coming from sources inside the NYCC and from people who say they and others were hired at homeless shelters by the NYCC.

dignin

Monster Rain wrote:

So what will these protests accomplish if the allegations turn out to be true that the NYCC (which is basically ACORN now that ACORN was exposed and some offices closed--same office and many of the same staffers) is paying people $100/day to stand at the protests all day, paying homeless people $10/hour to protest, and having people go door-to-door to collect money for various causes (such as saying they're collecting money for the United Federation of Teachers to test for PCBs in schools) when they are really giving the money to Occupy Wall Street? These reports are coming from sources inside the NYCC and from people who say they and others were hired at homeless shelters by the NYCC.

How about a source :roll:

Monster Rain

It's being reported here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/ex ... -movement/

I'm not saying that the allegations are true, just asking what effect it would have on the protest's impact, credibility, etc. if it is true. Most people will see the source and immediatley dismiss it but that's not really my problem. This could be true or it could be fabricated by people within NYCC who are upset for whatever reason or who are just misinformed about the facts and think they're doing the right thing. Who knows? The organization's website does mention fighting PCBs in NYC schools and does mention supporting Occupy Wall Street. Obviously, those 2 facts don't make the allegations true because they can be 2 unrelated causes being supported by the group legally and ethically. I just think that it's something worth looking into.

dignin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

So what will these protests accomplish if the allegations turn out to be true that the NYCC (which is basically ACORN now that ACORN was exposed and some offices closed--same office and many of the same staffers) is paying people $100/day to stand at the protests all day, paying homeless people $10/hour to protest, and having people go door-to-door to collect money for various causes (such as saying they're collecting money for the United Federation of Teachers to test for PCBs in schools) when they are really giving the money to Occupy Wall Street? These reports are coming from sources inside the NYCC and from people who say they and others were hired at homeless shelters by the NYCC.

How about a source :roll:

Jason P

Uh, oh, Fox News was mentioned!



Anyway, I read the article and I'm not putting much credibility into it. The fact that former ACORN workers are involved in OWS is not surprising and the reporter is most likely blowing this WAY out of proportion.

This is the EXACT same shit that liberal media outlets did to paint the Tea Party as racist extremists. It's easy to find bad apples and focus on them.

Monster Rain

I agree that it doesn't discredit the movement just because there are some people involved who are--at best--unethical. I think it would damage the public perception of the movement however, if people start to question if the number of people there has been exaggerated by the fact people are being paid and if people question if there's an ethical difference between going door-to-door for donations that aren't going where they're intended and Wall Street execs getting bonuses after accepting bailouts (a difference in the scale of the actions, certainly, but not in the ethics). Public opinion is pretty fickle and I wonder if this would wind up erasing whatever chance there is for the protesters to see any sort of reform at the end of this thing.

Taking an optimist view of it, at least some jobs have been created out of this if it's true.

Jason P wrote:

Uh, oh, Fox News was mentioned!



Anyway, I read the article and I'm not putting much credibility into it. The fact that former ACORN workers are involved in OWS is not surprising and the reporter is most likely blowing this WAY out of proportion.

This is the EXACT same shit that liberal media outlets did to paint the Tea Party as racist extremists. It's easy to find bad apples and focus on them.

RW81233

ajedigecko wrote:

oh yeah.....the ole' "i was drunk" card. i forgot about that one. i will be sure to use it, the next time.

Dude I apologized and said I shouldn't have written it. What more do you want on a messageboard?

RW81233

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Jason P wrote:

OWS ... spreading or receding??? Any witnesses care to report?

I'm too far off in the sticks to know ... I witnessed a local Occupy Main Street event which consisted of a broke-down tractor which blocked traffic for 30 minutes.

Who knows? I'm sure the supporters would say growing, and others would say not. The fact is, they are still there, and I give them credit if they make it through the next couple months.

But, I live close to the OWS, and it affects me and everyone else I come into contact 0, so it really doesn't exist. It's sort of like if a tree falls in the woods....

Keep hanging out in the park. They've already cost NYC over $3 million in police OT. So, they'll begin to anger a few more people when the realities of what they are ACTUALLY accomplishing starts directly affecting people. Though, I'm sure the families of those police officers will thank them when they have the happiest Christmas in a long time.

people are gonna get pissed about the 3 million dollars spent "controlling" the people protesting the 600 million we gave to rich people? methinks this is the point of the whole movement. went down to bmore today, it had about 75 people and 30 tents at 2 pm...heard it's about to get crazy tonight when the police try to shut it down.

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

people are gonna get pissed about the 3 million dollars spent "controlling" the people protesting the 600 million we gave to rich people? methinks this is the point of the whole movement. went down to bmore today, it had about 75 people and 30 tents at 2 pm...heard it's about to get crazy tonight when the police try to shut it down.

I have to say your view of this is a bit warped. They are not there to control the protestors. They are there for several reasons:

1) Protect the protestors
2) Make sure protestors don't get out of control
3) Control traffic
4) Do their normal jobs

Nowhere is it meant that they control the protestors. And, yes - those that actually pay taxes will feel the brunt of this and be more pissed that they have to pay taxes than some illusion folks have about beating rich people being the solution to going out and finding a job.

EDIT: If what you think is the point of the protests, then they're more stupid than I thought.

RW81233

the point of the protests are that neoliberal capitalism is unfair, unsustainable, and that the $600 mill we gave bankers, and the hundreds of millions of dollars we give owners of sports teams to build stadiums (the $500 mill to rebuild the Superdome post-Katrina is the MOST egregious form of rich people handouts to date), the tax breaks, kick backs, etc. are all various nodes of evidence about how stupid this particular form of capitalism is.

RW81233

EdsonNascimento wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

people are gonna get pissed about the 3 million dollars spent "controlling" the people protesting the 600 million we gave to rich people? methinks this is the point of the whole movement. went down to bmore today, it had about 75 people and 30 tents at 2 pm...heard it's about to get crazy tonight when the police try to shut it down.

I have to say your view of this is a bit warped. They are not there to control the protestors. They are there for several reasons:

1) Protect the protestors
2) Make sure protestors don't get out of control
3) Control traffic
4) Do their normal jobs

Nowhere is it meant that they control the protestors. And, yes - those that actually pay taxes will feel the brunt of this and be more pissed that they have to pay taxes than some illusion folks have about beating rich people being the solution to going out and finding a job.

EDIT: If what you think is the point of the protests, then they're more stupid than I thought.

Isn't point number 2 about controlling the protesters? yes i get your point though. However I don't think that it's stupid that people think that rich people are (at least partly) to blame for their joblessness. Individually, sure, some of those kids are lazy, undereducated, etc. but some of that stems from the failures of the system, and some of that stems from the fact that many jobs have been outsourced and/or no longer exist.

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I have to say your view of this is a bit warped. They are not there to control the protestors. They are there for several reasons:

1) Protect the protestors
2) Make sure protestors don't get out of control
3) Control traffic
4) Do their normal jobs

Nowhere is it meant that they control the protestors. And, yes - those that actually pay taxes will feel the brunt of this and be more pissed that they have to pay taxes than some illusion folks have about beating rich people being the solution to going out and finding a job.

EDIT: If what you think is the point of the protests, then they're more stupid than I thought.

Isn't point number 2 about controlling the protesters?

Ummm. No. If I need to explain, please let me know.

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Jason P wrote:

OWS ... spreading or receding??? Any witnesses care to report?

I'm too far off in the sticks to know ... I witnessed a local Occupy Main Street event which consisted of a broke-down tractor which blocked traffic for 30 minutes.

Who knows? I'm sure the supporters would say growing, and others would say not. The fact is, they are still there, and I give them credit if they make it through the next couple months.

But, I live close to the OWS, and it affects me and everyone else I come into contact 0, so it really doesn't exist. It's sort of like if a tree falls in the woods....

Keep hanging out in the park. They've already cost NYC over $3 million in police OT. So, they'll begin to anger a few more people when the realities of what they are ACTUALLY accomplishing starts directly affecting people. Though, I'm sure the families of those police officers will thank them when they have the happiest Christmas in a long time.

people are gonna get pissed about the 3 million dollars spent "controlling" the people protesting the 600 million we gave to rich people? methinks this is the point of the whole movement. went down to bmore today, it had about 75 people and 30 tents at 2 pm...heard it's about to get crazy tonight when the police try to shut it down.

Well hopefully cooler heads prevail.
I went down to the Minneapolis one the other day and chatted a few people up... I heard a lot about "they"...they do a lot of stuff, I had no idea. They have even brainwashed me into thinking that Government isn't part of the solution....that was my favorite...I don't watch fox news but 3 of the 4 people accused me of regurgitating fox news talking points...I am really sick of the whole if you are against us you have been brainwashed bullshit. Other than that I fully support their attempt to get involved. I don't agree with the focus of their anger, but welcome more people getting involved...it will lead to them better educating themselves on all sorts of issues, and possibly even economics...which is a sorely under-represented field of education among our elected officials..

RW81233

Mike, I think you are right on this. I think most of the Tea Party's positions are inane, BUT I respect the fact that they are stepping outside of the Demopublican realm and coming up with new ideas. Personally, I think that if OWS and the Tea Party become the starting points of political discussion then we've truly gotten somewhere different and hopefully better.

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

Isn't point number 2 about controlling the protesters? yes i get your point though. However I don't think that it's stupid that people think that rich people are (at least partly) to blame for their joblessness. Individually, sure, some of those kids are lazy, undereducated, etc. but some of that stems from the failures of the system, and some of that stems from the fact that many jobs have been outsourced and/or no longer exist.

Please explain how rich people are to blame for their joblessness?

Let me give you a counterpoint to the argument you are about to make.

We are looking to hire folks, but we get either unqualified folks or people with unreasonable expectations of salaries (and we pay better than most b/c we are a mid sized company that must compete with the big boys). Finally someone walks in with minimal background in our industry, but a great programming background (it's an analyst position that relies a lot on programming). He started out in the financial industry 15 years ago, and ended up getting laid off. He wandered around for a couple of years, but in the meantime went back and got certificates in a different industry (ours) because he saw it as a mostly recession proof industry (which he is right about). He came in aknowledging his lack of experience in our field.

He also came in with low expectations of salary to start. He was very smart. And I was especially impressed with his initiative. We ended up offering him more than he asked. That interview made me think even less of the OWS folks. There are jobs out there.

RW81233

EdsonNascimento wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Isn't point number 2 about controlling the protesters? yes i get your point though. However I don't think that it's stupid that people think that rich people are (at least partly) to blame for their joblessness. Individually, sure, some of those kids are lazy, undereducated, etc. but some of that stems from the failures of the system, and some of that stems from the fact that many jobs have been outsourced and/or no longer exist.

Please explain how rich people are to blame for their joblessness?

Let me give you a counterpoint to the argument you are about to make.

We are looking to hire folks, but we get either unqualified folks or people with unreasonable expectations of salaries (and we pay better than most b/c we are a mid sized company that must compete with the big boys). Finally someone walks in with minimal background in our industry, but a great programming background (it's an analyst position that relies a lot on programming). He started out in the financial industry 15 years ago, and ended up getting laid off. He wandered around for a couple of years, but in the meantime went back and got certificates in a different industry (ours) because he saw it as a mostly recession proof industry (which he is right about). He came in aknowledging his lack of experience in our field.

He also came in with low expectations of salary to start. He was very smart. And I was especially impressed with his initiative. We ended up offering him more than he asked. That interview made me think even less of the OWS folks. There are jobs out there.

i guess my questions would be why are the people unqualified? not like the obvious part, but more why haven't they been able to get the schooling needed? as for the others what makes their salary expectations unreasonable? isn't this particular form of capitalism the science of exploitation? by that i mean don't you plan on making more from your worker than you pay them...and if you can get away with it won't you pay them as little as you possibly can and hope that the best qualified person (which it seems you lucked into) takes the job?