People like this never learn until AFTER their "world's" are burned to the ground and they are dragged, kicking and screaming, to a very nasty end. French aristocrat's were once equally out of touch with the dangers their behavior created too. Until, of course, their heads landed in a basket.
To extend the metaphor, the occupiers are even less organized than the "leaders" of the french revolution... and we all know what happened in france after the revolution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Not enough people here in the US support the Occupiers which is why they really aren't feared by the people with the money or the power. The French revolts were supported by a majority of the people which is why it was a revolt and not a protest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I agree, I was just making fun of the comparisons between the "occupiers" and real revolutions throughout history. This isn't the french revolution, it is more like a junior high school protest about the quality of the school lunch desserts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If you think OWS lacks support, you haven't been paying attention to the polls which substantiate the broad supoport they enjoy on the core issues they're protesting (i.e., economic/political disenfranchisement). Counting heads at OWS protests doesn't come CLOSE to reflecting THAT support. By all means, go with your blind faith and arroance and continue underestimating the VERY real consequences you and your ilk are creating. French Aristocrat's made the SAME social miscalculations from the "bubbles" they lived in TOO.
@Norman619,
The same goes for you. By the time you, "boys", identify the broad support OWS enjoys, it will be too late. Revolution manifests itself in MANY ways and you don't have the numbers to keep the Wall Street/financial services industry "Gravy Train" from derailing.
My guess is 20% actually support their actions, and I think I'm being generous. I also suspect that we are talking about the 20% least influential people in the country.
I am also not impressed with the current political system or the current politicians, but I'm not about to support this nonsense. A majority of the people in the country have (political/economic) things to complain about, but that does not translate into "revolution," you are greatly overstating their significance and influence. At most, they are an annoyance to the public and an expense for several cities.
1) OWS influence is far more widespread than you're acknowledging. If you doubt what I'm telling you, pay attention to the rhetoric coming from BOTH political parties and EVERY media outlet. Their influence isn't waning, it's GROWING by the day.
2) Revolution can manifest itself in MANY ways and from MANY sectors of society. Street protests and violent strife are only a FEW of its manifestations. You're making a tragic mistake by assuming that waning protests after the crackdowns will make this social movement go away. It won't as long as the economic/political disenfranchisement which created the anger continues to exist and goes unpunished.
3) The U.S. election system is a peaceful form of revolution than could easily turn violent if Conservatives persist in undermining it at every turn. Rigged elections ALWAYS delegitimize the government's and "leader's" they produce. We witnessed this truth during Iran's last election. Yes, I realize the country is a theocracy, but the violent protests that sprang from that election tampering are as possible here as they were there.
1. The media loves a good story, even if it has no significance. I have not heard one legitimate political candidate or office holder from either party endorse these actions.
2. There will always be economic/political disenfranchisement, that doesn't mean these folks have any actual influence. One person's social movement is another person's whine-o-thon.
3. Fine, these folks should sit down and figure out exactly what they want and back a candidate that actually supports their views. If they had a clear message and actually supported someone or something specific, they could actually measure their influence. As it is, Obama will win in November and nothing will change; what do they think they are going to do next, sit out in the cold for another winter?
If these folks actually had a clue, they would focus their message on a small number of issues that they find important. They would make clear statements about only those issues and try to find candidates or legislation that they can back. That would give them an opportunity to actually demonstrate that they had some influence. Of course, they would require some organization and leadership (which they do not seem to have).
1. Yes, the media loves a good story, but that love doesn't come close to descibing politician's love for re-election. As for hearing a politician endorse that movement's reason for protesting, you must have slept through the President's recent SOTU address AND the 80%+ approval rating it received from the country. Statistically speaking, that approval INCLUDES Democrat's, Independents, and, YES, REPUBLICANS TOO.
2. I don't dispute that there will always be "some" economic/political disenfranchisement, but revolutions ALWAYS break out when significant distortions emerge. The levels in existence today are NOT acceptable by any stretch of imagination. If present distortions are not corrected soon, it WILL destabilize the U.S. political and economic structure. Revolutions always do.
3. As for where to go from here, the writing is already on the wall. The country has no choice but to rebalance (not equalize mind you) it's socio-economic structure in order to rebuild a strong middle class and the social ladder that once existed. Absent that, all Hell WILL break loose.
You do know what political disenfranchisement means, right? It means shut out of the political process with little, if any, influence on public policies which affect their lives. Do you honestly expect anyone to buy into the notion that OWS stands much chance against the army of corporate-funded lobbyists, political consultants and corrupt politicians arrayed against them and the American people? That's what CREATES the threat of violent revolution.
Did the British monarchy/aristocrat's "listen" to the concerns raised by American colonists? Not until the Revolutionary War broke out. They, too, were as dismissive of those disenfranchisement concerns as you and many conservatives are now.
4. The BEST way to implement the economic/political reforms MOST Americans want is by electing legislators who are MOST likely to champion it (i.e., Progressive/Independent legislators). We only need to look at what Conservatives have done since 2008 to see they have NO interest in those reforms. Conservatives prefer championing broken ideas and protecting the status quo.
I agree with your advice on championing one's political aspirations. Organization, focus and persistence achieve political results.
Yup, I don't disagree with their goals; I just don't see how their current tactics are going to accomplish much. They are basically just storming the castle with torches and pitchforks at this point.
During the great depression, communism and socialism became reasonably popular among people who had similar concerns. They never got anyone elected, but they probably moved the center slightly to the left. The difference is organization. Protests may get people's attention for a while; but you still need to give them a clear message once you have their attention.
Maybe this will result in some type of political movement, assuming that some type of leadership emerges from the chaos. Someone needs to stand up and explain exactly what their goals are; then they have a chance of getting a politician to step forward and campaign on that platform. As it is, these folks are too unpredictable; it would be too risky for a politician to associate himself with this group at this time.
To your point, OWS protest efforts alone won't achieve their desired goals. But, it has far more of an impact in changing the nation's direction than some will openly acknowledge. That's why Wall Street and their pawns in government chose to crack down on the protests growing across the nation/world.
"During the great depression, communism and socialism became reasonably popular among people who had similar concerns."
You've got a distorted view of that time in history. Allow me to give it the context it deserves since those baseless claims originate from events surrounding the Russian Revolution:
Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Czar Nicholas refused to institute social/economic reforms to alleviate widespread poverty and suffering (aka economic disenfranchisement). As a result of his negligence/resistance to reform, revolution broke out in the country and the Russian government was overthrown. Bolsheviks/Communists swept into the ensuing power vaccum, killed the Czar and his family and radically reformed the country for decades to come.
So, imagine the fear that quickly spread among the powerful in the U.S. when economic disenfranchisement spread across the U.S. after they collapsed the U.S. economy in 1929, close to a decade afterwards. After witnessing the consequences of the Russian Revolution, they feared the same fate. That's why, to this day, we hear Conservatives accusing their fellow Americans of harboring Communist/Socialist aspirations. The accusation is as baseless then as it is today.
It should also be noted that the wealthy class in America accused FDR of being a traitor to their class for instituting sorely needed socio-economic reforms. FDR was right, they were wrong. The U.S. THRIVED after his socio-economic reforms and regulations were implemented, but has suffered EVERY time Conservatives undermine them. Financial services industry deregulation (i.e., Glass-Steagall repeal) is a PRIME example of what I speak.
Tragically, most Conservatives persist in championing socio-economic policies which endanger the country and their long-term interests instead of learning from past history so they make the correct choices.
That’s consistent with the attitude expressed by several of these types after Occupy Wall Street sprung up; bankers told the Times on the record that they could understand the anger of the protesters camped on their doorstep; but privately, a hedge manager said, “Most… view [it] as ragtag group looking for sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll.”
So sayeth the winners in our winner-take all economy. The very guys who were celebrating at the St. Regis because they were too big to fail. Even when they fell flat on their faces, the government was there to dust them off, bail them out and send them back to fight the class war with nary a harsh word or punishment. Talk about a nanny welfare state.
None of this was by accident. The last three decades have witnessed a carefully calculated heist worthy of Robert Redford and Paul Newman in “The Sting” — but on a massive scale. It was an inside job,politically engineered by Wall Street and Washington working hand-in-hand, sticky fingers with sticky fingers, to turn the legend of Robin Hood on its head – giving to the rich and taking from everybody else. Don’t take our word for it – it’s all on the record.
These bankers are obviously scummy; but can we please stop calling these protesters the 99%? The don't represent 99% of anything, the real number is probably closer to 20%.
Can't we just let the 1% and the 20% fight it out while the rest of us get on with our lives (and pay the taxes that support both these groups).
I've seen at least one poll which shows support for the core positions OWS represents at over 75% (i..e, opposition to political/ecionomic disenfranchisement). Statistically speaking, that would include Independents, Democrat's, and, YES, EVEN REPUBLICANS.
Since you're blatantly clueless over the economic issues at hand, OWS represents YOUR economic interests too. Unfortunately, you're either too brainwashed, dim-witted or corrupt to recognize it.
At this point, I don't believe that anyone within "OWS's leadership" even knows what their mission is supposed to be, or what they would consider a successful outcome. If someone can provide me with a specific list of issues and recommended changes, we will have something to talk about. Until then, this is nothing more than a mob action; a very poorly organized mob action.
I fully understand the economic issues (probably better than 90% of these protesters), I also understand why these actions will not produce any results. At some point, the local police in these cities will get tired of the drain on their budgets and shut these folks down; hopefully, no one will get hurt.
OWS has morphed/coalesced into a much more organized and effective movement. While the movement doesn't resemble it's earlier iteration, it's gained support from key socio-economic groups who ARE organized and highly influential (including key figures on Wall Street and, no, I'm not referring to George Soros).
This is what some elements on Wall Street have always feared, but they're too late to do anything to curb the nation's direction. Economic/political reality has always been their threat, NOT OWS.
Watch and learn. Change is bearing down on Wall Street like a freight train. Those who stand in it's way only do so at their own expense.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
People like this never learn until AFTER their "world's" are burned to the ground and they are dragged, kicking and screaming, to a very nasty end. French aristocrat's were once equally out of touch with the dangers their behavior created too. Until, of course, their heads landed in a basket.
"Pride always comes before the fall"
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
To extend the metaphor, the occupiers are even less organized than the "leaders" of the french revolution... and we all know what happened in france after the revolution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Not enough people here in the US support the Occupiers which is why they really aren't feared by the people with the money or the power. The French revolts were supported by a majority of the people which is why it was a revolt and not a protest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
I agree, I was just making fun of the comparisons between the "occupiers" and real revolutions throughout history. This isn't the french revolution, it is more like a junior high school protest about the quality of the school lunch desserts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
@craig1958,
If you think OWS lacks support, you haven't been paying attention to the polls which substantiate the broad supoport they enjoy on the core issues they're protesting (i.e., economic/political disenfranchisement). Counting heads at OWS protests doesn't come CLOSE to reflecting THAT support. By all means, go with your blind faith and arroance and continue underestimating the VERY real consequences you and your ilk are creating. French Aristocrat's made the SAME social miscalculations from the "bubbles" they lived in TOO.
@Norman619,
The same goes for you. By the time you, "boys", identify the broad support OWS enjoys, it will be too late. Revolution manifests itself in MANY ways and you don't have the numbers to keep the Wall Street/financial services industry "Gravy Train" from derailing.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
My guess is 20% actually support their actions, and I think I'm being generous. I also suspect that we are talking about the 20% least influential people in the country.
I am also not impressed with the current political system or the current politicians, but I'm not about to support this nonsense. A majority of the people in the country have (political/economic) things to complain about, but that does not translate into "revolution," you are greatly overstating their significance and influence. At most, they are an annoyance to the public and an expense for several cities.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
@craig1958,
There's a couple of points you're missing:
1) OWS influence is far more widespread than you're acknowledging. If you doubt what I'm telling you, pay attention to the rhetoric coming from BOTH political parties and EVERY media outlet. Their influence isn't waning, it's GROWING by the day.
2) Revolution can manifest itself in MANY ways and from MANY sectors of society. Street protests and violent strife are only a FEW of its manifestations. You're making a tragic mistake by assuming that waning protests after the crackdowns will make this social movement go away. It won't as long as the economic/political disenfranchisement which created the anger continues to exist and goes unpunished.
3) The U.S. election system is a peaceful form of revolution than could easily turn violent if Conservatives persist in undermining it at every turn. Rigged elections ALWAYS delegitimize the government's and "leader's" they produce. We witnessed this truth during Iran's last election. Yes, I realize the country is a theocracy, but the violent protests that sprang from that election tampering are as possible here as they were there.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
1. The media loves a good story, even if it has no significance. I have not heard one legitimate political candidate or office holder from either party endorse these actions.
2. There will always be economic/political disenfranchisement, that doesn't mean these folks have any actual influence. One person's social movement is another person's whine-o-thon.
3. Fine, these folks should sit down and figure out exactly what they want and back a candidate that actually supports their views. If they had a clear message and actually supported someone or something specific, they could actually measure their influence. As it is, Obama will win in November and nothing will change; what do they think they are going to do next, sit out in the cold for another winter?
If these folks actually had a clue, they would focus their message on a small number of issues that they find important. They would make clear statements about only those issues and try to find candidates or legislation that they can back. That would give them an opportunity to actually demonstrate that they had some influence. Of course, they would require some organization and leadership (which they do not seem to have).
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
@craig1958,
1. Yes, the media loves a good story, but that love doesn't come close to descibing politician's love for re-election. As for hearing a politician endorse that movement's reason for protesting, you must have slept through the President's recent SOTU address AND the 80%+ approval rating it received from the country. Statistically speaking, that approval INCLUDES Democrat's, Independents, and, YES, REPUBLICANS TOO.
2. I don't dispute that there will always be "some" economic/political disenfranchisement, but revolutions ALWAYS break out when significant distortions emerge. The levels in existence today are NOT acceptable by any stretch of imagination. If present distortions are not corrected soon, it WILL destabilize the U.S. political and economic structure. Revolutions always do.
3. As for where to go from here, the writing is already on the wall. The country has no choice but to rebalance (not equalize mind you) it's socio-economic structure in order to rebuild a strong middle class and the social ladder that once existed. Absent that, all Hell WILL break loose.
You do know what political disenfranchisement means, right? It means shut out of the political process with little, if any, influence on public policies which affect their lives. Do you honestly expect anyone to buy into the notion that OWS stands much chance against the army of corporate-funded lobbyists, political consultants and corrupt politicians arrayed against them and the American people? That's what CREATES the threat of violent revolution.
Did the British monarchy/aristocrat's "listen" to the concerns raised by American colonists? Not until the Revolutionary War broke out. They, too, were as dismissive of those disenfranchisement concerns as you and many conservatives are now.
4. The BEST way to implement the economic/political reforms MOST Americans want is by electing legislators who are MOST likely to champion it (i.e., Progressive/Independent legislators). We only need to look at what Conservatives have done since 2008 to see they have NO interest in those reforms. Conservatives prefer championing broken ideas and protecting the status quo.
I agree with your advice on championing one's political aspirations. Organization, focus and persistence achieve political results.
craig1958Feb 2, 2012
Yup, I don't disagree with their goals; I just don't see how their current tactics are going to accomplish much. They are basically just storming the castle with torches and pitchforks at this point.
During the great depression, communism and socialism became reasonably popular among people who had similar concerns. They never got anyone elected, but they probably moved the center slightly to the left. The difference is organization. Protests may get people's attention for a while; but you still need to give them a clear message once you have their attention.
Maybe this will result in some type of political movement, assuming that some type of leadership emerges from the chaos. Someone needs to stand up and explain exactly what their goals are; then they have a chance of getting a politician to step forward and campaign on that platform. As it is, these folks are too unpredictable; it would be too risky for a politician to associate himself with this group at this time.
eraptorFeb 2, 2012
To your point, OWS protest efforts alone won't achieve their desired goals. But, it has far more of an impact in changing the nation's direction than some will openly acknowledge. That's why Wall Street and their pawns in government chose to crack down on the protests growing across the nation/world.
"During the great depression, communism and socialism became reasonably popular among people who had similar concerns."
You've got a distorted view of that time in history. Allow me to give it the context it deserves since those baseless claims originate from events surrounding the Russian Revolution:
Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Czar Nicholas refused to institute social/economic reforms to alleviate widespread poverty and suffering (aka economic disenfranchisement). As a result of his negligence/resistance to reform, revolution broke out in the country and the Russian government was overthrown. Bolsheviks/Communists swept into the ensuing power vaccum, killed the Czar and his family and radically reformed the country for decades to come.
So, imagine the fear that quickly spread among the powerful in the U.S. when economic disenfranchisement spread across the U.S. after they collapsed the U.S. economy in 1929, close to a decade afterwards. After witnessing the consequences of the Russian Revolution, they feared the same fate. That's why, to this day, we hear Conservatives accusing their fellow Americans of harboring Communist/Socialist aspirations. The accusation is as baseless then as it is today.
It should also be noted that the wealthy class in America accused FDR of being a traitor to their class for instituting sorely needed socio-economic reforms. FDR was right, they were wrong. The U.S. THRIVED after his socio-economic reforms and regulations were implemented, but has suffered EVERY time Conservatives undermine them. Financial services industry deregulation (i.e., Glass-Steagall repeal) is a PRIME example of what I speak.
Tragically, most Conservatives persist in championing socio-economic policies which endanger the country and their long-term interests instead of learning from past history so they make the correct choices.
miklkitFeb 1, 2012
FTA:
That’s consistent with the attitude expressed by several of these types after Occupy Wall Street sprung up; bankers told the Times on the record that they could understand the anger of the protesters camped on their doorstep; but privately, a hedge manager said, “Most… view [it] as ragtag group looking for sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll.”
So sayeth the winners in our winner-take all economy. The very guys who were celebrating at the St. Regis because they were too big to fail. Even when they fell flat on their faces, the government was there to dust them off, bail them out and send them back to fight the class war with nary a harsh word or punishment. Talk about a nanny welfare state.
None of this was by accident. The last three decades have witnessed a carefully calculated heist worthy of Robert Redford and Paul Newman in “The Sting” — but on a massive scale. It was an inside job,politically engineered by Wall Street and Washington working hand-in-hand, sticky fingers with sticky fingers, to turn the legend of Robin Hood on its head – giving to the rich and taking from everybody else. Don’t take our word for it – it’s all on the record.
vitriolandangstFeb 1, 2012
Well, it wasn't THAT clever. The heist was made with the complicity of top politicians and regulators.
anomaly100Jan 31, 2012
And they're ridiculing the 99%. Classy.
particleman420Feb 1, 2012
well what good is being disgustingly rich if you cant rub it in the noses of poor people?
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
These bankers are obviously scummy; but can we please stop calling these protesters the 99%? The don't represent 99% of anything, the real number is probably closer to 20%.
Can't we just let the 1% and the 20% fight it out while the rest of us get on with our lives (and pay the taxes that support both these groups).
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Who is calling them that?
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
"anomaly100" called them them the 99% in his post.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Weird
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
20%???!!! In your dreams, craig.
I've seen at least one poll which shows support for the core positions OWS represents at over 75% (i..e, opposition to political/ecionomic disenfranchisement). Statistically speaking, that would include Independents, Democrat's, and, YES, EVEN REPUBLICANS.
Since you're blatantly clueless over the economic issues at hand, OWS represents YOUR economic interests too. Unfortunately, you're either too brainwashed, dim-witted or corrupt to recognize it.
The same goes for you Norm...
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
Am I calling you names? Chill out, Francis.
At this point, I don't believe that anyone within "OWS's leadership" even knows what their mission is supposed to be, or what they would consider a successful outcome. If someone can provide me with a specific list of issues and recommended changes, we will have something to talk about. Until then, this is nothing more than a mob action; a very poorly organized mob action.
I fully understand the economic issues (probably better than 90% of these protesters), I also understand why these actions will not produce any results. At some point, the local police in these cities will get tired of the drain on their budgets and shut these folks down; hopefully, no one will get hurt.
eraptorFeb 1, 2012
OWS has morphed/coalesced into a much more organized and effective movement. While the movement doesn't resemble it's earlier iteration, it's gained support from key socio-economic groups who ARE organized and highly influential (including key figures on Wall Street and, no, I'm not referring to George Soros).
This is what some elements on Wall Street have always feared, but they're too late to do anything to curb the nation's direction. Economic/political reality has always been their threat, NOT OWS.
Watch and learn. Change is bearing down on Wall Street like a freight train. Those who stand in it's way only do so at their own expense.
vitriolandangstFeb 1, 2012
Eye's Wide Shut?
The issues that get debated in Washington are ONLY for our consumption as well.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
So is the Rep-Dem fighting we see televised. There really is only 1 party.