• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

How would you hurt the way they do business?
If my only options in my mind was to direct my ire at them, and not at my elected representatives? I'd throw my chips in with hactivist groups, and do my damndest to bring all the trash to light I could, and have wikileaks, and a thousand other sites just like it, plastering this info on every surface of the internet I could afford.
But the more effective way is to simply demand a change and a redress of grievances from washington. Of course, in order to intelligently do that, this mass of people would need to brush up on the subject, and truly understand all the links in the chain around our necks.



Social evolution is not a quick process. I am encouraged that people are standing up for it.

But this is not social evolution, this is just more class warfare. This is poor people decrying the foul deeds of the wealthy, and not a peep about the people who made the fortunes of these rich people, and their foul deeds, possible.
 
Well. THAT came out weird. Bare with me, I'm trying to get up to speed on this stuff.
 
But this is not social evolution, this is just more class warfare. This is poor people decrying the foul deeds of the wealthy, and not a peep about the people who made the fortunes of these rich people, and their foul deeds, possible.

It is social evolution, not a political rally for any particular party. And you still didn't answer my question about how you said you would harm the way wall street does business. How?
 
It is social evolution, not a political rally for any particular party. And you still didn't answer my question about how you said you would harm the way wall street does business. How?

I did, but my post came out all screwy for some reason.

If my only options in my mind was to direct my ire at them, and not at my elected representatives? I'd throw my chips in with hactivist groups, and do my damndest to bring all the trash to light I could, raid every email, plunder every hard drive, and have wikileaks, and a thousand other sites just like it, plastering this info on every surface of the internet I could afford. Would that be wrong? Sure. But personally, I feel that these giant megacorporations and an affront to my rights as a US citizen. In other words, open season, I say.

But the more effective way is to simply demand a change and a redress of grievances from washington. Of course, in order to intelligently do that, this mass of people would need to brush up on the subject, and truly understand all the links in the chain around our necks.
 
Oh...and for now, it's social evolution, in the same way the tea party started out as such, and we saw how that went. You may not believe me, and hell, maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet my bottom dollar this group goes the same way, and just ends up as the tea party's mirror on the other side of the aisle.
 
I did, but my post came out all screwy for some reason.

If my only options in my mind was to direct my ire at them, and not at my elected representatives? I'd throw my chips in with hactivist groups, and do my damndest to bring all the trash to light I could, raid every email, plunder every hard drive, and have wikileaks, and a thousand other sites just like it, plastering this info on every surface of the internet I could afford. Would that be wrong? Sure. But personally, I feel that these giant megacorporations and an affront to my rights as a US citizen. In other words, open season, I say.

But the more effective way is to simply demand a change and a redress of grievances from washington. Of course, in order to intelligently do that, this mass of people would need to brush up on the subject, and truly understand all the links in the chain around our necks.

By resorting to drastic "open season" behavior, your approach would lose credibility in short order. As to your second point, once again, this is not a political rally, it is a call to awaken the country as to how screwed up our priorities have become.
 
I did, but my post came out all screwy for some reason.

If my only options in my mind was to direct my ire at them, and not at my elected representatives? I'd throw my chips in with hactivist groups, and do my damndest to bring all the trash to light I could, raid every email, plunder every hard drive, and have wikileaks, and a thousand other sites just like it, plastering this info on every surface of the internet I could afford. Would that be wrong? Sure. But personally, I feel that these giant megacorporations and an affront to my rights as a US citizen. In other words, open season, I say.

But the more effective way is to simply demand a change and a redress of grievances from washington. Of course, in order to intelligently do that, this mass of people would need to brush up on the subject, and truly understand all the links in the chain around our necks.

You still haven't got the chain on your bicycle yet.
 
Apparently not:

"The 1,300 Austinites who gathered at City Hall on Thursday for the Occupy Austin protest couldn’t have been more diverse. They were young and old, fanatical and skeptical, liberal and conservative."
Occupy Austin Protest Includes Many Students, Alumni | The Alcalde

"The Occupy the Fed protests – led by Alex Jones, the Oathkeepers and other conservatives – are targeting the Federal Reserve."
Prison Planet.com » Protests: Both Conservatives and Liberals Are Right

Are any of them seeking the Presidency for the Republican Party?
 
So you'll continue to be bothered by corruption but remain silent on the present and blame it on the past. That's not uncommon response these days.

No one has remainded silent. I simply hate the practice. I don't selectively direct my distain. If getting rid of Obama would end the practice, I'd be with you. But the truth is the republican counterpart will do the same thing. We need to go beyond ourside thinking and try to end the practices.
 
So you've chosen to ignore the conservatives that marched in Austin and other cities? Whatever floats your boat, and I never said it was bi-partisan, only that there are conservatives that support many of the goals.

I've chosen to refute your assertion that 2 republicans do not make a bi-partisan effort in any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure the push from the left both in the media and in politics is trying to give OWS credibility by making the claim OWS and the Tea Party are the same and that they agree on so many things --- which is untrue. There are a few issues they do agree on, but as usual, this being exaggerated beyond the pale.
 
WE are their bosses. It is up to US, not business men, though they are free to join us come election time. If you want to change wall street, without going the political rout, you're going to have to a slightly more radical rout. Wall Street has no legal obligation to any of us, and are therefore totally unconcerned what some group of people outside their office windows consuming products their subsidiary companies produce are doing. You either need to find proof of illegal activity and bring legal action against them, or you need to do something that would actually harm how they do business, disrupt their cash flow, alter their lives in some way as individuals.

The rightwingers have to pretend that they don't know who the OWS is protesting so they can dishonestly claim that they are not protesting politicians (ie "without going the political rout")
occupy-dc-biden-2011-10-06.jpg


occupy-washington-dc-protest-kicks-march_860561.jpg


Everyone knows that the OWS protests are spreading across the nation, but the rightwingers have to pretend that they don't know this
 
I did, but my post came out all screwy for some reason.

If my only options in my mind was to direct my ire at them, and not at my elected representatives? I'd throw my chips in with hactivist groups, and do my damndest to bring all the trash to light I could, raid every email, plunder every hard drive, and have wikileaks, and a thousand other sites just like it, plastering this info on every surface of the internet I could afford. Would that be wrong? Sure. But personally, I feel that these giant megacorporations and an affront to my rights as a US citizen. In other words, open season, I say.

But the more effective way is to simply demand a change and a redress of grievances from washington. Of course, in order to intelligently do that, this mass of people would need to brush up on the subject, and truly understand all the links in the chain around our necks.

Why do you pretend that they are not protesting to our elected representatives?

occupy-dc-lead-2011-thumb-640xauto-4370.jpeg
 
No one has remainded silent. I simply hate the practice. I don't selectively direct my distain. If getting rid of Obama would end the practice, I'd be with you. But the truth is the republican counterpart will do the same thing. We need to go beyond ourside thinking and try to end the practices.

Then let's go "beyond outside thinking".

How do you change the pattern unless honest people with a proven track record are elected? Is there another way?
 
Then let's go "beyond outside thinking".

How do you change the pattern unless honest people with a proven track record are elected? Is there another way?

First you have to get such a person to run. Remember, in today's world anyone who has actually done anything is disqualified because it can be sued agains him. I can't think of one politician who is completely honest. And we shouw by our voting that we don't want them to be. We don't reward truth telling. We reward lies. Best liar wins.

So, if we can find someone honest to even get into the game, and if we can keep that person honest with all the money they need to run, and if we can recoginze and support honesty, then I would argue we should vote for that person regardless of party.

Now when do you think we will have this?
 
First you have to get such a person to run. Remember, in today's world anyone who has actually done anything is disqualified because it can be sued agains him. I can't think of one politician who is completely honest. And we shouw by our voting that we don't want them to be. We don't reward truth telling. We reward lies. Best liar wins.

So, if we can find someone honest to even get into the game, and if we can keep that person honest with all the money they need to run, and if we can recoginze and support honesty, then I would argue we should vote for that person regardless of party.

Now when do you think we will have this?

We will never have this in our lifetimes because people are imperfect.

But we can set high standards for ourselves, as far as we are capable, and demand the same of our media, elected leaders, our government and others.

Only when the people feel themselves second rate will they accept governments who are second rate. A well informed public will elect good leaders and will not accept mediocrities.
 
Then let's go "beyond outside thinking".

How do you change the pattern unless honest people with a proven track record are elected? Is there another way?

We have to get money out of politics to get that to happen. That's why many on the left support public financing of campaigns.
 
We will never have this in our lifetimes because people are imperfect.

But we can set high standards for ourselves, as far as we are capable, and demand the same of our media, elected leaders, our government and others.

Only when the people feel themselves second rate will they accept governments who are second rate. A well informed public will elect good leaders and will not accept mediocrities.

Perfect? No, i'm not seeking perfection. I'm seeking a better way to acheive better results. That starts with us actually demanding more. Not demanding the media affirm our beliefs, but that asks tough questions, not about birth certificants and being AWOL, but about truth and facts, even if it doesn't affirm our belief systems. Demanding our leaders tell the truth, which also means that they admit they can't affect change wiithout help, as they are not kings. And that people be willing to listen to complicated and nuanced answers more than they want platitudes and easy sound bites.

We can get closer to this, do a better job of this. But it has to start with the voter, and not the politiican.
 
We have to get money out of politics to get that to happen. That's why many on the left support public financing of campaigns.

Money is certainly an issue.
 
Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

If so, they lose.

The PJ Tatler » Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

Before anyone starts, I'm not claiming that this guy represents anyone. Just noting, if violence starts, the country turns against them.

Of course, it wouldn't benefit anybody...well except Wall Street. The news would be about those violent protestors instead of massive income equality and government/corporate corruption.
 
Perfect? No, i'm not seeking perfection. I'm seeking a better way to acheive better results. That starts with us actually demanding more. Not demanding the media affirm our beliefs, but that asks tough questions, not about birth certificants and being AWOL, but about truth and facts, even if it doesn't affirm our belief systems. Demanding our leaders tell the truth, which also means that they admit they can't affect change wiithout help, as they are not kings. And that people be willing to listen to complicated and nuanced answers more than they want platitudes and easy sound bites.

We can get closer to this, do a better job of this. But it has to start with the voter, and not the politiican.

Yes, it has to start with the voter for sure, but too many voters appear to follow bumper stickers, posters, and campaign slogans. The politicians know that well, of course, and will take advantage. Too many of them are not unlike evangelists.

It is always, ultimately, about money and keeping an eye on it.

But who can follow the money now when its being shipped away to the national capitol hundreds or thousands of miles away where a largely uncontrollable bureaucracy and self promoting politicians then have access to it?.

Government (and thus our money and their accountability), as Tocqueville noted a couple of centuries ago, should be as close to home as possible. There will be more money being thrown around, which might be fine while people think its someone else's money, until we must all finally demand that it stop.
 
Perfect? No, i'm not seeking perfection. I'm seeking a better way to acheive better results. That starts with us actually demanding more. ...
We can get closer to this, do a better job of this. But it has to start with the voter, and not the politiican.

You can also, demand less. Specifically, if you believe government cannot do certain things for whatever reason, there is also the alternative of taking that responsibility and revenue from them, and returning it to the states, or to citizens. Look at China. Their economy, middle class, and civil rights, boomed when government did LESS in terms of centrally planning their economy.

And there is no need to look at this through a partisan lens. Think management of a corporation. Sure, authoritarian, hierarchical management works, and in some cases works best, but for an intellgient, proactive work force that can handle the industry, it may work best to take some of that power from the top (government, management), and empower the individual work groups, workers, etc. Power to the people, no?
 
Last edited:
To me they seem rather dubious.

What's their point?
 
You can also, demand less. Specifically, if you believe government cannot do certain things for whatever reason, there is also the alternative of taking that responsibility and revenue from them, and returning it to the states, or to citizens. Look at China. Their economy, middle class, and civil rights, boomed when government did LESS in terms of centrally planning their economy.

And there is no need to look at this through a partisan lens. Think management of a corporation. Sure, authoritarian, hierarchical management works, and in some cases works best, but for an intellgient, proactive work force that can handle the industry, it may work best to take some of that power from the top (government, management), and empower the individual work groups, workers, etc. Power to the people, no?

There are a lot of real differences between a country and corporation, and I certainly wouldn't want us to think of the country as a business. Never. Also, while China did less, they still do a whole lot moe than we do. So, there may well be a place where government plays a role, and where it doesn't. Absolutes rarely pan out. I would prefer more pragmatic problem solving.
 
Yes, it has to start with the voter for sure, but too many voters appear to follow bumper stickers, posters, and campaign slogans. The politicians know that well, of course, and will take advantage. Too many of them are not unlike evangelists.

It is always, ultimately, about money and keeping an eye on it.

But who can follow the money now when its being shipped away to the national capitol hundreds or thousands of miles away where a largely uncontrollable bureaucracy and self promoting politicians then have access to it?.

Government (and thus our money and their accountability), as Tocqueville noted a couple of centuries ago, should be as close to home as possible. There will be more money being thrown around, which might be fine while people think its someone else's money, until we must all finally demand that it stop.

Not as much as I disagree with local spending as I note we had serious problems there in a lot of areas which led to it moving away. We must understand that before we start just making those generalizations. Local governments have not been perfect either. And even if we agreed to move more back that way tomorrow, we'd have to address those past problems.
 
Back
Top Bottom