• 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
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.



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".

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



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



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.

Do you have any information...with links, please...that can substantiate the highlighted statement?
 
you can unfortunately walk into somewhat public areas of a house to witness some pretty horrible sites

Ok, that's true. I was Sig Ep for a year.
 
I think you should work on your comprehension skills...buddy.

I said nothing of the kind.

Except that you did. This is you in post 141:

That's why I called the people in the parks useful idiots. I don't give a wit about what they say or do.

And by studiously ignoring their statements and actions, you've somehow managed to convince yourself, according to post 190, that...

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.

So, in a nutshell, you don't care about their actions or statements, but somehow know both that their actions and statements are useless, and also simultaneously "directed" by an organization that by all accounts has had very little to do with OWS almost since it's inception.

Tell you what, why don't you make some effort to compare the actions and statements of OWS with what you believe to be the goals of Adbusters and see how much they overlap. You'll find, if you do that, that they don't overlap much at all.
 
Keep pretending that retired people are not unemployed. Your disingenuity is fooling no one.

Unemployed is being without a paid job but still available to work. Retired means having left ones job and casing to be available to work. Also, in regards to the different status's, I again state...

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".
 
Unemployed is being without a paid job but still available to work. Retired means having left ones job and casing to be available to work. Also, in regards to the different status's, I again state...

Wrong. Unemployed means "not employed"

What you describe is the qualifications to receive UI benefits.
 
Except that you did. This is you in post 141:



And by studiously ignoring their statements and actions, you've somehow managed to convince yourself, according to post 190, that...



So, in a nutshell, you don't care about their actions or statements, but somehow know both that their actions and statements are useless, and also simultaneously "directed" by an organization that by all accounts has had very little to do with OWS almost since it's inception.

Tell you what, why don't you make some effort to compare the actions and statements of OWS with what you believe to be the goals of Adbusters and see how much they overlap. You'll find, if you do that, that they don't overlap much at all.

I have never ignored the statements and actions of the useful idiots...I DO contend that their statements and actions are useless, disruptive and, in the end, counter to any hope they have of being taken seriously...which is why I DON'T take them seriously.

Now. I asked you in another post, and I'll ask you again: Do you have any information...with links, please...that prove your contention that Adbusters has little to do with OWS?

I have posted links that show they do.
 
I have never ignored the statements and actions of the useful idiots...I DO contend that their statements and actions are useless, disruptive and, in the end, counter to any hope they have of being taken seriously...which is why I DON'T take them seriously.

Now. I asked you in another post, and I'll ask you again: Do you have any information...with links, please...that prove your contention that Adbusters has little to do with OWS?

I have posted links that show they do.

You've got it ass-backwards. It's not his burden to prove a negative. You made the claim; you just haven't proven it.
 
Do you have any information...with links, please...that can substantiate the highlighted statement?

1) Most of my info from OWS comes from actually talking to people involved, rather than the internet. I live in San Francisco, which means that I'm very close (geographically) to Oakland. I personally know several people who have joined in Occupy Oakland. Three examples - an attorney, a bartender, some dude I met at a bar a couple of weeks ago who is a close friend of the military veteran who was (and possibly still is) in critical condition due to being hit in the head by a tear gas canister. None of those people are anti-capitalism. Only one of the three (the lawyer) even knew what Adbusters is. None of the people they met who were involved gave a **** about Adbusters. Just for example, of course.

2) You could infer the same thing I have by doing the same thing (actually listening to what they have to say for themselves and seeing if their statements and concerns match up with Adbusters - they don't).

3) Since you asked...

Kalle Lasn and Micah White, the Creators of Occupy Wall Street : The New Yorker
-This article focuses on the origins and development of the democratic processes of OWS. You'll notice that they largely stop talking about Adbusters pretty early on.

Ray Kachel’s Journey from Seattle to Zuccotti Park : The New Yorker
-This article focuses on some of the people involved with OWS, and especially on an out-of-work computer programmer from Seattle who moved into Zuccotti park on a whim. You'll notice that the goals of most (possibly all) of the people the article talks about have nothing to do with Adbusters.

-You could read their forums, here,
Public Forum | OccupyWallSt.org
and discover that there are a wide variety of viewpoints presented

Then there's stuff like this -

Occupy Marines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surely you wouldn't accuse off-duty marines to be puppets of Adbusters?

I'm ignoring NYTimes stuff, and Huffpost, and other sources I'm fairly sure you'd reject out of hand. But do your own research. If you're honest about it, you'll find that I'm right. Better yet, talk to them yourself. They're all over the damn place these days:

List of Occupy movement protest locations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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?
No, I did not. I asked who is taking the risk.

Then i specified that I was talking about the investment. And I won't respond before you start acting more mature and respond to my questions in a proper way. There are no reason to talk to you, if you have no interest in listening to other people.
 
Wrong. Unemployed means "not employed"

What you describe is the qualifications to receive UI benefits.
When people talk about unemployment today, then they are talking about the ones who are actively looking for a job, but can't find one. All definitions say the same.

So, live with it and accept the proper definitions.
 
You've got it ass-backwards. It's not his burden to prove a negative. You made the claim; you just haven't proven it.

I disagree.

These are his words:

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

Aderleth makes a very direct statement that Adbusters do not have any real influence with OWS. I asked him to prove this statement.
 
No, I did not. I asked who is taking the risk.

And I answered that the workers are taking a risk with their health and their life. I answered the question you asked

Then i specified that I was talking about the investment. And I won't respond before you start acting more mature and respond to my questions in a proper way. There are no reason to talk to you, if you have no interest in listening to other people.

It's not my fault you were careless in wording your question. It's your fault. I answered the question you asked. If you think I'm going to answer question after question until you get it right (if ever) while you ignore my questions, you're being foolish. Answer my first question, and I'll answer your second:

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
I have never ignored the statements and actions of the useful idiots...I DO contend that their statements and actions are useless, disruptive and, in the end, counter to any hope they have of being taken seriously...which is why I DON'T take them seriously.

Now. I asked you in another post, and I'll ask you again: Do you have any information...with links, please...that prove your contention that Adbusters has little to do with OWS?

I have posted links that show they do.

No you haven't. You've posted links showing that Adbusters was involved with catalyzing the movement, which is also mentioned, in greater detail, in the first article I linked in my last post. If you read that article, you'll notice that practically the very first thing that happened at the initial gathering is that there was friction between the die hard anarchist Adbuster fans, and the other group involved. The other thing you'll notice is that basically none of the people who are influential with the NY General Assembly have anything to do with Adbusters.

So, you've really got to ask yourself, if this is an Adbusters movement, why do they have no control over what is happening, and why does OWS not actually support their politics, in general (which you'd have noticed by now, if you weren't dead set on dismissing the entire movement as useful idiots)?
 
Aderleth makes a very direct statement that Adbusters do not have any real influence with OWS. I asked him to prove this statement.

Which I did on this very page.
 
It's not my fault you were careless in wording your question. It's your fault. I answered the question you asked. If you think I'm going to answer question after question until you get it right (if ever) while you ignore my questions, you're being foolish. Answer my first question, and I'll answer your second:

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
It was quite clear what I was talking about, since I talked about investment.

You are just going to keep "misunderstanding" what I write, so it is a complete waste of time debating with you.
 
It was quite clear what I was talking about, since I talked about investment.

You are just going to keep "misunderstanding" what I write, so it is a complete waste of time debating with you.

No, you asked about risk. Misrepresenting your own questions is not going to dig you out of the hole.

Here's the question you asked:

Did the workers take the risk?

I answered your question. Now you answer mine:
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
No, you asked about risk. Misrepresenting your own questions is not going to dig you out of the hole.

Here's the question you asked:

I answered your question. Now you answer mine:
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
Read what is below the question, and you will realize i was talking about investment. I said.

Yes, the workers built the factories.
Did the workers take the risk?

You know that most investment projects fail?

It should be quite clear what I am talking about, even for you. Since you misunderstood my statements on purpose, then I have no interest debating this any further with you. You are just going to keep "misunderstanding".
 
Read what is below the question, and you will realize i was talking about investment. I said.

No, you asked two questions. I answered the first. The 2nd question does not ask about who is making an investment. Misrepresenting your own words is not honest.

Now answer my first question, and I'll answer your 2nd
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?



It should be quite clear what I am talking about, even for you. Since you misunderstood my statements on purpose, then I have no interest debating this any further with you. You are just going to keep "misunderstanding".

I accept your surrender
 
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.

they sure hate razors, soap and hygiene though
 
Now answer my first question, and I'll answer your 2nd
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
I have a question for you. How many of the bottom 1% died while working construction?

Hint: it is the same as the 1%.
 
I have a question for you. How many of the bottom 1% died while working construction?

Hint: it is the same as the 1%.

Gee, I thought you had no interest in continuing. Like your question, that comment you made earlier was poorly thought out.

And now you're trying to hide that carelessness by once again, failing to answer my question

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
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).
So we have different opinions on the matter. If OWS was more transparent perhaps I would have a different opinion.



Which might support your position if Adbusters had any real influence with OWS, which they very emphatically do not.
Adbusters created a premise for OWS, which is anti-Capitalism. 3 seconds at adbusters site should be telling enough on that subject.



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.

How can you be so sure about OWS when they represent themselves as not an organization but cells of individuals working for their own beliefs and by their own methods? Are you saying that OWS is unified in their goals as a whole? An who exactly are "they"?
 
OWS protesters are more likely to have a job than Tea Tantrum protesters

Picture-7.png


» Get a What? A Job? 70% of Occupy Wall Streeters are Employed, Compared to 56% of Tea Partiers
Who cares? ANd what does it have to do with me?
 
Gee, I thought you had no interest in continuing. Like your question, that comment you made earlier was poorly thought out.

And now you're trying to hide that carelessness by once again, failing to answer my question

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
If I was interested, I would have written more.

And now, I have responded to your question. It is the same as for the bottom 1%. Both groups have 0% because neither work in construction.

I have held my end of the bargain, but you are never going to hold your end of the bargain.
 
Back
Top Bottom