• 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!

Is the OWS against Capitalism?

Is the OWS Movement against Capitalism?


  • Total voters
    69
You get a brownie button. I am not theorizing. Today's 'Occupy the ports" was designed to disrupt the economy.

Yes, some specific protest actions have been designed to temporarily disrupt specific types of economic activity. This is, in my opinion, not a very bright idea. It is still a far cry from this:

I think the plan all along has been to destabilize the economy

You do understand the distinction between a small number of tactical decisions to disrupt specific aspects of the economy and having the overall strategic goal of destabalizing the economy, yes?
 
Yes, it was the workers who were injured and some even lost their lives building the factories and working in them. It's hard to "walk away" when you're dead

on edit: What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
Let me rephrase.

Did the workers take the financial risk of investing in a new company, that could have easily failed?
 
Lol.

[Its funny because it is obvious that is not the central issue.. as there really are no central issues.. but anti-capitalism is barely ever acknowledged. The movement is broad and inclusive. So, no. Lol. 'Occupy' is not anti-capitalism. (Maybe, for the most part, anti-crony-capitalism.. but not anti-capitalism)]
 
Why should I concern myself with the useful idiots? They do nothing useful...nothing that matters...nothing really original. All of their activities are directed by the few behind-the-scenes people at Adbusters.

Right. So, in a nutshell, your position is "I refuse to pay attention to what OWS is doing or saying, but I'm convinced that they're doing and saying things in furtherance of the goals of an organization that I don't like."

You may want to work on your reasoning skills there, buddy.
 
Let me rephrase.

Did the workers take the financial risk of investing in a new company, that could have easily failed?

I answered your question, so why won't you answer mine?

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
Right. So, in a nutshell, your position is "I refuse to pay attention to what OWS is doing or saying, but I'm convinced that they're doing and saying things in furtherance of the goals of an organization that I don't like."

You may want to work on your reasoning skills there, buddy.

Some people have to work very hard to not understand what OWS is about

TMW2011-10-12colorKOS.png
 
I answered your question, so why won't you answer mine?

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
No, you didn't. You sidesteped the question by pretending like you didn't understand what I said.
 
I have heard that the OWS is not against capitalism at all, though I have seen many OWS groups and signs that indicate they are indeed against capitalism. What is the truth? Are they against capitalism or not? I wuld reason that during their earlier days they came to protest against businesses and corporations, which are all a part of capitalism. What do you think about this? I see OWS members on YouTube chanting against the crimes of capitalism while holding their signs that reflect their belief.

I actually watched a documentary today with a reporter who joined the OWS movement in an attempt to udnerstand their goals. I have to say I was surprised to see the OWS through the eyes of someone uncensored by the major media news channels. I used to think of them as jobless hippies but in truth there are some major political concerns that the OWs brings up that I find myself agreeing with.

No the OWS movement is not against capitalism they actually support the idea in general however when it comes to matters of say in political matters they do not believe that politicans should be bought out before they ever even get into office. And I have to say I agree with them in this respect. Our political system here in america is too heavily reliant on the money flow, people who are owners of big buisnesses have the biggest political say and for the most part almost all politicians are worried about one thing, getting re-elected.

In order to get re-elected they need to follow the guidelines of the two biggest contributers to their campaign funds
1: Big buisness/lobbyist
2: their political party affiliation.

With both of these matters in mind a politicians ability to vote on an issue in true regard to their own opinion is limited in a most severe matter. If they do not represent those who helped them get into office, the chances are they will never get re-elected as they will not have the cash pool to pull from. Because of this politicians have the tendency to play it safe in most regards and only follow the will of their political party on any given issue. This is why the supercommittee we had recently failed. Two sides that will argue on any given issue no matter what with no form of compromise. No side ever wants to be the one to break party rules.

Back on the topic of the OWS movement I have actually seen a few people with signs saying 'up with capitalism down with greed' while I could not tell you the exact meaning of this sign I suppose we can infer that it has to with the ideas of those who put in a large amount of effort will get greaer rewards than those who put in less effort and the idea that anyone in America could start a buisness if they wanted and it would be up to them to make it successful. In our corrent society those huge companies who buy out politicians have a LARGE amount of control, so much that those smaller stores really just can't compete in the market. Somehting else I can infer is that this is of course referring to massive government bailouts on corporation of which they have had a lot of stock or credit with. As I stated before that is only what I can infer from this.

I encourage all of you to keep in mind what I said before however that the OWS main goal is to fight against political corruption in our government caused by the money flow and in the sense I support them.
 
Last edited:
Some people refuse to recognize the truth even when it's put into pictures
Medicare.jpg


MedicareProtestPetition0310.jpg

Nice petition. It seems the person who made it would like to keep medicare. What's this have to do with drunk freshmen?
 
No, you didn't. You sidesteped the question by pretending like you didn't understand what I said.

Sure I did. You asked if workers took a risk, and I answered by pointing out that workers risk their health and their lives. It's not my fault if you thought your question had only one right answer; it's the result of your limited pov, which leaves one unable to see the risks that workers take in order to earn a living.

Now answer my question - What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
Nice petition. It seems the person who made it would like to keep medicare. What's this have to do with drunk freshmen?

You spoke about people who wanted govt handouts. You're not fooling anyone by pretending that you don't remember what you were talking about in order to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that the teabaggers are a bunch of unemployed bums dependent on govt welfare
 
Not sure who these "Tea Tantrum" people you're speaking of, but going by just the chart you posted it appears that the orange/red movement has roughly 11% unemployed, non-retired people compared to the blue movement that appears to have 30% unemployed, non-retired people

You're not fooling anybody by pretending you don't know who the tea tantrum people are, either.
 
Yes, some specific protest actions have been designed to temporarily disrupt specific types of economic activity. This is, in my opinion, not a very bright idea. It is still a far cry from this:



You do understand the distinction between a small number of tactical decisions to disrupt specific aspects of the economy and having the overall strategic goal of destabalizing the economy, yes?
Perhaps their not so bright idea is an attempt to destabilize the economy. Tactical decisions implies a plan, does it not?

Lets look at some facts. Adbusters no matter what degree they currently have within OWS hatched the idea for OWS. Adbusters asserts an anti-Capitalism ideology. Occupy Oakland is one of the more radical general assemblies among the occupy movement.
This site, like the Occupy Wall Street Movement as a whole, aims to challenge an economic and political system that is dominated and controlled by the 1%. About Occupyoakland.org | This Website - Occupy Oakland
That statement very clearly conveys that they are against our economic system and our political system.
yes they assert that those system are dominated and controlled by the 1%. But they imply that the system allowed that to happen.
 
Perhaps their not so bright idea is an attempt to destabilize the economy. Tactical decisions implies a plan, does it not?

Obviously yes, but not necessarily the plan you think it is, which is specifically why I pointed out the distinction between strategy and tactics. In fact, they are very likely not interested in the plan you're asserting (destabalizing the economy), given the extraordinary amount of evidence to the contrary (like, for instance, the attitudes and statements of the vast majority of OWS protesters that I've ever read or heard).

Lets look at some facts. Adbusters no matter what degree they currently have within OWS hatched the idea for OWS. Adbusters asserts an anti-Capitalism ideology.

Which might support your position if Adbusters had any real influence with OWS, which they very emphatically do not.

Occupy Oakland is one of the more radical general assemblies among the occupy movement. That statement very clearly conveys that they are against our economic system and our political system.

They are not "against" our economic system (not the way you mean, at least), they take issue with flaws in our economic and political systems. And if you actually talk to them, you'll find that with the exception of the die hard anarchists and socialists (most of whom are part of groups that pre-date OWS by years or decades, but have joined up with OWS nonetheless), none of them support destabalizing the economy. In fact, their primary interest is to create a stronger economy by pointing out and fixing the flaws in our economic and political system that perpetuate stagnant wages, a weakened middle class, and increasingly ridiculous profits for those elements of the financial sector most responsible for causing the disastrous recession we're all currently living through.
 
You spoke about people who wanted govt handouts. You're not fooling anyone by pretending that you don't remember what you were talking about in order to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that the teabaggers are a bunch of unemployed bums dependent on govt welfare

Well, yeah. I stated that its true that as a MOVEMENT OWS isn't about "handouts" but that its not exactly accurate that "people" aren't asking for handouts because they definitely are. I absolutely remember talking about that.

Where you're losing me is with this talk of tea baggers. Like I said, outside of 8 year old kids throwing school yard insults or drunk college guys at a frat party I'm not exactly sure what you could mean and I'm not sure how any of those two things relates to your picture. I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on the picture but I just don't have the context. Perhaps if you could accurately explain it then I'd be able to comment.
 
Well, yeah. I stated that its true that as a MOVEMENT OWS isn't about "handouts" but that its not exactly accurate that "people" aren't asking for handouts because they definitely are. I absolutely remember talking about that.

Where you're losing me is with this talk of tea baggers. Like I said, outside of 8 year old kids throwing school yard insults or drunk college guys at a frat party I'm not exactly sure what you could mean and I'm not sure how any of those two things relates to your picture. I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on the picture but I just don't have the context. Perhaps if you could accurately explain it then I'd be able to comment.

Your post is nothing but dishonest and disingenous hypocrisy. You think it's fine for you to call others "drunk freshmen" but it's wrong when others engage in name calling. And you continue to pretend that you don't know who the teabaggers are so that you can avoid commenting on the how the teabaggers are dependent on govt handouts, while the OWS protesters are more likely to be employed

Picture-7.png


http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/...-are-employed-compared-to-56-of-tea-partiers/
 
Last edited:
Your post is nothing but dishonest and disingenous hypocrisy. You think it's fine for you to call others "drunk freshmen" but it's wrong when others engage in name calling.

Even as drunk freshmen, they are weak. I did much more entertaining things. They're mere punks.
 
Your post is nothing but dishonest and disingenous hypocrisy. You think it's fine for you to call others "drunk freshmen" but it's wrong when others engage in name calling.

What? Not at all. I am stating that the only people I've witnessed involved in "tea bagging" have been drunken college guys at frat parties. I'm not insulting any group, simply indicating my confusion.

And you continue to pretend that you don't know who the teabaggers are so that you can avoid commenting on the how the teabaggers are dependent on govt handouts, while the OWS protesters are more likely to be employed

Again, perhaps you could be more specific as I do not understanding exactly how people who enjoy placing ones testicles on anothers mouth are dependent on government handouts, but perhaps you can better explain. You stated medicare...perhaps there are routine accidental teeth marks? Hard for me to say, I'm not familiar with it. Perhaps if you could clarify and be more specific we could speak and I could happily give you my thought and opinions.

As to the OWS protesters being employed? Indeed, a majority of them are. Looking at the figure you keep posting, as I said, it appears that there are more "employed" people in the blue group then the red group. Similarly there are more people in the category of "unemployed" in the blue group compared to the red group. There is little to no people in the "retired" category in the blue group and about 33% in the red group. So it seem, as a percentage of their total numbers, the Blue group has both more currently employed and more currently "unemployed" statused people.
 
We need a mass-tasing device. We could practice the sound machines. OWS will be worth something eventually.
 
What? Not at all. I am stating that the only people I've witnessed involved in "tea bagging" have been drunken college guys at frat parties. I'm not insulting any group, simply indicating my confusion.

Your disingenuity is fooling no one.



Again, perhaps you could be more specific as I do not understanding exactly how people who enjoy placing ones testicles on anothers mouth are dependent on government handouts, but perhaps you can better explain. You stated medicare...perhaps there are routine accidental teeth marks? Hard for me to say, I'm not familiar with it. Perhaps if you could clarify and be more specific we could speak and I could happily give you my thought and opinions.


Again, your disingenuity is fooling no one.

As to the OWS protesters being employed? Indeed, a majority of them are. Looking at the figure you keep posting, as I said, it appears that there are more "employed" people in the blue group then the red group. Similarly there are more people in the category of "unemployed" in the blue group compared to the red group. There is little to no people in the "retired" category in the blue group and about 33% in the red group. So it seem, as a percentage of their total numbers, the Blue group has both more currently employed and more currently "unemployed" statused people.

Keep pretending that retired people are not unemployed. Your disingenuity is fooling no one.
 
Right. So, in a nutshell, your position is "I refuse to pay attention to what OWS is doing or saying, but I'm convinced that they're doing and saying things in furtherance of the goals of an organization that I don't like."

You may want to work on your reasoning skills there, buddy.

I think you should work on your comprehension skills...buddy.

I said nothing of the kind.
 
What? Not at all. I am stating that the only people I've witnessed involved in "tea bagging" have been drunken college guys at frat parties. I'm not insulting any group, simply indicating my confusion.

You witnessed tag-bagging. That's messed up. Why? I have an idea about your confusion.
 
Last edited:
Your disingenuity is fooling no one.

Again, your disingenuity is fooling no one.

What? I'm just asking you to describe in an adult and clear way what you're talking about. Nothing disingenuous at all with that. I'd be absolutely happy to answer if you could do such a thing. Its rather curious that you're seemingly incapable of doing such.

Keep pretending that retired people are not unemployed. Your disingenuity is fooling no one.

Why would I keep doing something that I'm not doing? Can someone retire from their job and then go to the unemployment office and apply for unemployment checks? No, because retirement is a different status then being "unemployed".
 
You witnessed tag-bagging. That's messed up. Why? I have an idea about your confusion.

Around 2:00 am when the parties winding down and you have a few people passed out, you can unfortunately walk into somewhat public areas of a house to witness some pretty horrible sites I'm afraid to say. To the life of me I've not been able to figure out why choosing to place your own privates onto another man whose not consious is somehow supposed to be degrading to them and not yourself and why its viewed as funny....then again, drunk people are rarely rational so whatcha gonna do.
 
Back
Top Bottom