Movements?

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

"The belief is held by some protesters that the President has become irrelevant, stressing the importance for the 99% to lead and inspire change."

That's the part I find interesting. Years ago I starting thinking- why a president? Why one person with so much power? Why not at least a committee if not "we the people". Looks that that might not have been such a far-fetched idea after all.

the executive branch really is a committee...i realize the president has the final say, but they rarely ever make decisions alone.

We also have an elected committee...it is called congress...do you really think they are any more efficient?

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

We also have an elected committee...it is called congress...do you really think they are any more efficient?

Well...

Let's just have committes of people who truly represent the people then instead of corporations and let's hold those committees accountable. I think that's what much of the focus of OWS is about.

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

Anyone who thinks the Occupy Wall Street or Tea Party is a real movement should wake up to reality. Movements take time, sometimes years to develop and gain power and success... something the US population does not have. Everything is instant gratification in our nation and that's something neither of these groups are willing to do. One side is very organized with leaders and very poor ideas and they're slowly fading from the political landscape; the other side is first starting a political group with no real leadership and an undefined mission. Both encapsulate their respective political leanings and parties but were simply fed up with the nonsense but mirror them both in the same notion and more importantly their same failures.

If you want to see real results in the US, start throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails, you'll upset the status quo and ruffle feathers. All this "change" through the political process, voting or sit-ins doesn't fix a damned thing, especially the corporate ownership and involvement in Washington. If you want to shut down Wall Street, burn it down, barricade it or shut it down to keep workers out - making signs and camping doesn't fix or force things to change. Paint outside the lines and you'll see change.

Why are you inciting violence? The Tea Party has made a small difference by trying to vote out the lifer politicians. We do it will out violence.

inlet13

FiveB247x wrote:

Anyone who thinks the Occupy Wall Street or Tea Party is a real movement should wake up to reality. Movements take time, sometimes years to develop and gain power and success... something the US population does not have. Everything is instant gratification in our nation and that's something neither of these groups are willing to do. One side is very organized with leaders and very poor ideas and they're slowly fading from the political landscape; the other side is first starting a political group with no real leadership and an undefined mission. Both encapsulate their respective political leanings and parties but were simply fed up with the nonsense but mirror them both in the same notion and more importantly their same failures.

If you want to see real results in the US, start throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails, you'll upset the status quo and ruffle feathers. All this "change" through the political process, voting or sit-ins doesn't fix a damned thing, especially the corporate ownership and involvement in Washington. If you want to shut down Wall Street, burn it down, barricade it or shut it down to keep workers out - making signs and camping doesn't fix or force things to change. Paint outside the lines and you'll see change.

Seems to me that you are trying to say that people should get violent. I can't believe there hasn't been more posts on both sides of this issue condemning this sort of rhetoric.

FiveB247x

There's one main reason why I say violence should be used, and that is because our nation is full of people who do nothing but sit on their hands and tune out. I hear a lot of talk about change but see nothing changing. Voting means very little in our system, campaigns, lobbying and leadership are all bought and sold. We the people is an archaic thought simply because there is no "we" (everyone is polarized or ostracized). Administrations and representatives come and go, and guess what, all the main areas that influence life as we know it, remain the same (or get worse). And to be clear, there are ways to cause violence without hurting others (Earth Liberation Front for example). People in our society think there has to be a decent or fair way to protest which accommodates the rest of society around them...this is an insane idea. Do you think revolutions occur because you play by the rules or within the system? The clear answer is no. There are different levels and examples which may or may not include direct violence, but to simply think people have to protest in a specific regimented way in order to appease the status quo is silly. If people did that, nothing would ever change.

Sea

inciting violence...
thread closed