I thought I had read that the shelter that was torched has been closed down and that that was why it had been targeted.
Which wouldn't excuse a riot, if you dislike riots (equivocation anyone?), but it's a far cry victimizing the homeless--IIRC.
Ah. Always more to the story, isn't there?
"The obvious problem is who did that and why."
Occupy Oakland demonstrators, of course.
Oh, wait? You mean a small number of people at those rallies should not be used to sully the name of the entire movement?
Wonder if I can think of a parallel situation here...
a key difference would be that many people in the OWS leadership(such as it is) have loudly decried such violence as detrimental to their movement and gotten many others involved to do the same. The most I have seen from tea partiers has been a slight wag of the finger followed by bad first amendment arguments at best.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Always more to the story, isn't there?I thought I had read that the shelter that was torched has been closed down and that that was why it had been targeted.
Which wouldn't excuse a riot, if you dislike riots (equivocation anyone?), but it's a far cry victimizing the homeless--IIRC.
I don't see any change, really. There are good guys and bad guys on every side.
C'mon, we've all been brought up with D&D. We all Law <--> Chaos =/= Good <--> Evil.
There are protesters that want to break stuff, and they are legitimate. There are police that want to oppress protesters, and they are legitimate. There are protesters that predate on other protesters, and they are legitimate. There are police willing to let public safety slide, and they are legitimate.
There are also police trying to keep peace and freedom, and they are legitimate. There are protesters desiring higher equality, and they are legitimate. There are police who like making sure the protesters can have a voice, and they are legitimate. There are protesters who understand the importance of public safety, and they are legitimate.
We can't simply say that OWS is good and not-OWS is evil. Nor can we say the inverse. There are good and bad points on all sides, and it's up to everyone to figure out what that means and what should be done about it.
|
|
a key difference would be that many people in the OWS leadership(such as it is) have loudly decried such violence as detrimental to their movement and gotten many others involved to do the same. The most I have seen from tea partiers has been a slight wag of the finger followed by bad first amendment arguments at best.
I see no difference. A finger wag is as loud as nebulous decrying from where I stand, and it has the same level of effect.
|
Any more suggestions on what should be done with the extra cash. OWS is in possession of?They should just hang on to it. No telling how long this could go on. Donations might drop off.
If and when it's all over, they can decide what to do with any extra then.
Might want to buy a few thousand sacks of Pakistani rice to keep the protesters fed. Pakistan doesnt actually produce rice but the UN keeps dropping off Rice which is then rebagged and sold back to the West as product of Pakistan.
|
|
By the way, while the protesters are busy having dance-offs to challenge capitalism and generally navel-gazing, has nobody noticed that actually the real story is in Greece?
I've been watching Greece with interest. But there's even less I can do about that.
Just the fact that Italy has to borrow at a high rate now to bail out Greece at a low rate tells me that there will be far more crises before all this is over.
If only we let things crash the way they were going to back in 2008. Now we have to let whole nations crash, instead. Of course, if you're among the elite, this is still a good solution for you.
Survey results for OWS. It has some interesting demographic results from a 300 person study.
73% Dislike Obama's policies
42% said they would vote democrat in a national election ...So 42% of the people protesting against the 1% are going to vote the 1% back into office (even though they don't like his policies)?
* head explodes *
Kang and Kodos in Treehouse of Horror VII.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So 42% of the people protesting against the 1% are going to vote the 1% back into office (even though they don't like his policies)?
Its the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Not liking our two party system and not acknowledging its existence aren't the same thing. Your choices are Obama, one of the republicans, or Obamaclone Romney.
By the way, while the protesters are busy having dance-offs to challenge capitalism and generally navel-gazing, has nobody noticed that actually the real story is in Greece?
Greece is probably going to turn down the austerity measures. I suppose at that point capitalists would have to try to kill it, because if one country can run on high taxes and generous social programs then every country should vote themselves the same deal...
Do they cite a single source in either of those stories? Or do they have any proof that more than a handful of the protesters work for them?
Sources who participated in the teachers union campaign said NYCC supervisors gave them the addresses of union members and told them to go knock on their doors and ask for contributions—and did not mention that the money would go toward Occupy Wall Street expenses. One source said the campaign raked in about $5,000.
Current staff members at NYCC told FoxNews.com the union fundraising drive was called off abruptly last week, and they were told NYCC should not have been raising money for the union at all.
“All the money collected from canvasses is pooled together back at the office, and everything we’ve been working on for the last year is going to the protests, against big banks and to pay people’s salaries—and those people on salary are, of course, being paid to go to the protests every day,” one NYCC staff member told FoxNews.com.
Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures.
“They’re doing serious damage control right now,” said an NYCC source.
NYCC Executive Director Jon Kest has been calling a series of emergency meetings to discuss last week’s report—and taking extreme measures to identify the sources in their office and to prevent further damage, a source within NYCC told FoxNews.com.
I dunno. Maybe.
They supposed to expose their sources by name?
Not legitimate sources. Anyway, we already know how it started.
I totally expected this.
I don't understand. Is the smoking gun that many ACORN people are involved in OWS? Seems pretty unsurprising given the similar outlooks. Of course, I also thought the whole "look, some clerk at ACORN is a criminal, we should shut ACORN down" bit was pretty dodgy. Using that criteria, Wal*Mart would be out of business tomorrow.
Or is the point that neither the Tea Party or OWS are as "grassroots" as they claim?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally expected this.
That people don't trust FOX news? Honestly, why wouldn't you have expected it? Do you trust MSNBC?
Anyone can participate. No one's in charge, so no one's "behind" it, however Fox's "sources" try to paint it.
Anyone can participate. No one's in charge, so no one's "behind" it, however Fox's "sources" try to paint it.
I don't really buy that. There are definetely people with more influence than others. People who have taken on leadership roles and can convice others to do major initiatives. Like the 3 people who are in charge of pretty much all of the finances because they have volunteered, have the expertise, and people trust them.
Fox isn't really painting any of these "paid protesters" that they are claiming to be there as core members, can't link them to any initiatives that OWS has undertaken except "holding signs," and not one of them is willing to give their name. So, even if this article is true and this organization is milking people for money so it can participate in a protest, there is no indication that it has any control over said protest, despite what Fox is claiming.
I totally expected this.That people don't trust FOX news? Honestly, why wouldn't you have expected it? Do you trust MSNBC?
The stuff they report as news, yes. Or at the very least I look into it.
Opinion shows like Madow or Matthews, no, not at all 'cuz it's opinion.
I don't understand. Is the smoking gun that many ACORN people are involved in OWS? Seems pretty unsurprising given the similar outlooks. Of course, I also thought the whole "look, some clerk at ACORN is a criminal, we should shut ACORN down" bit was pretty dodgy. Using that criteria, Wal*Mart would be out of business tomorrow.
Or is the point that neither the Tea Party or OWS are as "grassroots" as they claim?
More the second point, or just that when you look at the number of protestors, realize some of the folks apparently have been paid to be there because "it's their job".
I don't belive either of the two are any more or less grassroots than the other, or have any more or less legitimacy than the other.
The stuff they report as news, yes. Or at the very least I look into it.
Opinion shows like Madow or Matthews, no, not at all 'cuz it's opinion.
Shouldn't this be done with EVERY media report, though, regardless of its' source? Heck, I'll admit I'm a conservative and prefer Fox News to other sources, but that doesn't mean I take what they say at face value. It seems like other sources like MSNBC and CNN deserve the same level of scrutiny.
Anyone can participate. No one's in charge, so no one's "behind" it, however Fox's "sources" try to paint it.
How long was it between knowing who Julian Assange or the dude in the army that leaked stuff to him was and the stuff he posted on Wikileaks was accepted at face value? Accepted at face value: instantly. Found out who the source was? A year?
Until then, no one was "behind" it and it was all anonymous "sources".No one would have given Julian any info if he would have revealed his sources to the public immediately. Sources in general, especially about stuff like this like to stay anonymous so they can stay employed.
But I suppose Fox should do this.
I mean seriously, how many news places quote anonymous sources on a daily friggin basis? Are all of these "not legitimate sources"?
Double standard much?
It looks to me that some people might be doing some bad things under the pretense of being "just" another OWS protester. No doubt the opportunists have taken advantage of the Tea Party in a similar manner. In either case, if there is sufficient evidence, those responsible should be arrested.
Likewise, people lighting cars on fire and putting bricks through windows should be held accountable, irrespective of the group with which they identify.
However, I have yet to see a bunch of racist/xenophobic signs showing up at OWS demonstrations -- so in that respect, at least, OWS seems rather different than the Tea Party.
IIRC, I was homeless and squatting at the airport when the whole ACORN thing went down and, consequently, wasn't following the news.
Anyone up for a quick recap?
It looks to me that some people might be doing some bad things under the pretense of being "just" another OWS protester. No doubt the opportunists have taken advantage of the Tea Party in a similar manner. In either case, if there is sufficient evidence, those responsible should be arrested.
Likewise, people lighting cars on fire and putting bricks through windows should be held accountable, irrespective of the group with which they identify.
However, I have yet to see a bunch of racist/xenophobic signs showing up at OWS demonstrations -- so in that respect, at least, OWS seems rather different than the Tea Party.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?
Leave us not forget the support from organizations like the American Nazi Party, Hezbollah, and the Communist Party of China as well as from individuals like Hugo Chavez and Ayatollah Khamenei.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?
Rather than answer that silly question, I'll ask you one.
Why do you hate the occupy movement? What are they for that you're so against?
OMG sources plz?!!?
|
|
By the way, while the protesters are busy having dance-offs to challenge capitalism and generally navel-gazing, has nobody noticed that actually the real story is in Greece?Greece is probably going to turn down the austerity measures. I suppose at that point capitalists would have to try to kill it, because if one country can run on high taxes and generous social programs then every country should vote themselves the same deal...
Lucky they can't, then.
I don't think it's a given they will turn it down. It's not even a given they'll be allowed to have a referendum on it, in fact. But I think the other European countries are now mentally in a place to expel Greece from the Eurozone, and have said as much, which should concentrate some minds.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?
I don't think non-centralized groups in particular can control who endorses them.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?Rather than answer that silly question, I'll ask you one.
Why do you hate the occupy movement? What are they for that you're so against?
I don't hate them, actually. Well except for the handful of yahoos that torch and vandalize s+~%, and I don't hate them either, really.
I agree on a few points that actually focus on the relationship between corporate or other lobbyists and how much control is surrendered to them. What I don't agree on is the attitude that you deserve at least 35 or 40k per year for breathing, or any other point tied to that fallacious idea.Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?I don't think non-centralized groups in particular can control who endorses them.
Or who carries what sign, I reckon.
|
|
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?Rather than answer that silly question, I'll ask you one.
Why do you hate the occupy movement? What are they for that you're so against?
I don't hate them, actually. Well except for the handful of yahoos that torch and vandalize s~*!, and I don't hate them either, really.
I agree on a few points that actually focus on the relationship between corporate or other lobbyists and how much control is surrendered to them. What I don't agree on is the attitude that you deserve at least 35 or 40k per year for breathing, or any other point tied to that fallacious idea.Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
My main beef with this and the attitudes prevalent on this thread is that, on the one hand, there's a lot of moaning about the influence of special interests (rich bankers, lobbyists buying congressmen, and so on) and on the other the preferred solutions involve more special interests (protectionism, regulation, trade unions, state interference). It seems either (1) people don't know how the world works, (2) actually they don't mind special interests, just the special interests they don't like, or (3) both. The protesters are right that there are issues, but their soulutions would only perpetuate the problems, not solve them.
And, of course, being accused of "hating" for expressing a different view isn't really the most democratic way of addressing things...
I have always been skeptical of such reports. The klan and aryan nation types on the same side of an argument, okay. These groups joining cause with the Chinese and hezbollah? AND everyone else that happens to have an Axe to grind against America this week? A little hard to buy.
Leave us not forget the support from organizations like the American Nazi Party, Hezbollah, and the Communist Party of China as well as from individuals like Hugo Chavez and Ayatollah Khamenei.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Agreed.
Or who carries what sign, I reckon.When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?I don't think non-centralized groups in particular can control who endorses them.
when a movements claim to fame is how well organized and law abiding they are, it does not behoove it to discard that reputation when convenient.
Or who carries what sign, I reckon.
In the case of the tea party, the sentiment is there, whether it is flows from a central organizing body or not. And it's not one or two outliers, either.
How many ugly signs before it's a problem? How many racists is too many? How often can the rest of the group look the other way, or hide behind a lack of central authority before rational people start take notice?
When the gain the endoresement of the KKK? :P
Or who carries what sign, I reckon.In the case of the tea party, the sentiment is there, whether it is flows from a central organizing body or not. And it's not one or two outliers, either.
How many ugly signs before it's a problem? How many racists is too many? How often can the rest of the group look the other way, or hide behind a lack of central authority before rational people start take notice?
Bugleyman, I believe you are 100% correct here. I liked the Tea Party when it started. I liked it alot. What it has become, not so much. I think it is why you see the Tea Party losing so many people in the last year or so. They killed themselves, politically.
When the gain the endoresement of the KKK? :P
didn't a klan affiliate also endorse the tea party at one point?
When the gain the endoresement of the KKK? :P
Yeah, I really don't attach the importance to that endorsement that you seem to.
Edit: And actually it appears that David Duke, not the KKK, endorsed OWS. He also reportedly endorsed John McCain (that dirty racist).
Tea Party has dudes carrying signs depicting Obama as an african witch doctor, OWS has folks on tape shouting racial epithets against Jews.
I could not equate OWS and the TP, simply based on the number of arrests, amount of vandalism, injuries, littering, etc.
No need to go there. I'm sure the more impassioned party will act with less restraint.
In the ways they are the same I call attention, and in the ways they are different I do also.
I've already stated I think both sides aren't 100% correct on anything, but they each have ideas worth merit.
I dunno where I would be desperate, or why.
(1) people don't know how the world works
Says the person who assumes that the rules will be followed and that a family of four with 1 person making 100k is the same as 4 people making 25 k, and that a 100% service economy could work.
And, of course, being accused of "hating" for expressing a different view isn't really the most democratic way of addressing things...
Lynch mobs are one of the purer forms of democracy.
on the other the preferred solutions involve more special interests (protectionism, regulation, trade unions, state interference)
As opposed to the special interest where china is allowed to manufacture without environmental regulations but western countries have to not turn their people into mutant freaks.
Government interference is a given. It has to happen, we've seen the alternative. Once that interference is in place it needs to be accounted for somehow. You can't just tell American manufacturers to suck it up and work harder with one hand tied behind their back.
Nazis AND communists have endorsed it, though not each other. Don't know what Martha Stewart thinks.
OWS has folks on tape shouting racial epithets against Jews.
I've seen that tape. You're not mentioning the part where that man's views are repudiated by other protestors.
Yes, protests draw out the crazies on both sides -- but what I've seen of the Tea Party strongly suggests tacit acceptance. You don't agree, and that's fine. I encourage everyone to look around and draw their own conclusion. :)
Nazis AND communists have endorsed it, though not each other. Don't know what Martha Stewart thinks.
that makes no sense though -they are opposed to one another.
|
|
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Amen.
I am curious however, how much per year do you think a person does deserve for breathing?