Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their o by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then they will be in the 1%.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then they will be in the 1%.

They already are "the 1%".

Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?

My bad.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I look forward to the day when they give up on this because it's too hard, much like they did with their protests....

Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:17 · Score: 1

So why are you protesting?
Because... 99%! Banks are bad! Government! Greedy! Bonuses! 99% Banks! Bad Banks!
Re:They're still around? by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-30 01:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are three reasons I see for giving up on the protests:
1. It isn't working. The rich remain obscenely rich, corporate interests continue to trump public interests, and politicians remain betrothed to their corporate sponsors. For all the fuss the protests made, they change nothing.
2. People are getting bored. Media coverage isn't what it was, and there is no point protesting if you don't get attention for it. That is the purpose of the protest.
3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently.

There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored. That leaves them with the choice of either giving up or turning to more desperate measures like illegal direct action. We've seen a little of the latter in the Anonymous operation to use stolen credit card details to donate to charities.

I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street psycho start bombing banks yet. The environmental movement has a few, the pro-life movement has a few... maybe it just needs time.
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Can you translate this into a arabic language?
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Reason 4 - They've lost interest since it all was really nothing more than a fad. Probably about 50% of the people "protesting" had no clue why they were there. All they knew was that it was cool, there was free food, drugs available and loose women.
Now, they've all gone back to their mother's basements or their cardboard box somewhere.
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not working? You expected immediate results? The Occupy movement has already influenced public debate. Real change takes time.
While it's a natural tendency (especially for those of us more comfortable interacting with technology than our fellow humans) to avoid mass movements, there is a substantial history of government changes in response to these forces. Consider the 40-hour work week; worker protections, financial reforms, environmental rules, and (poster child!) civil rights legislation. Of course these changes have not been perfect, nor immune to attacks from those holding concentrated money or power, and they've taken a lot of time and sometimes blood. But this is how our democracy works - it cannot work without our involvement. Not easy, not perfect, not fast to change/improve. That hasn't changed since its founding.
Re:They're still around? by whargoul · 2011-12-30 01:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

4. Nobody takes them seriously because the way they go about their protests is offensive to 99% of the people not involved in their protests.
Re:They're still around? by ProfBooty · 2011-12-30 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

They should have teamed up with the GOP instead. I know one of the OWS organizers (he handles their money) and their beliefs are surprisingly in common with the Tea party before it was co-opted by Palin and other GOP leaders.
A biggie that they both want is less money in politics.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Re:They're still around? by timholman · 2011-12-30 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored.

And the reason they're ignored is because (surprise!) they don't have the popular support they pretend they have.
The whole "99% vs. 1%" meme was a joke from the beginning. So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line. You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect), not by sitting in a squatter's camp and making a nuisance / laughingstock of yourself.
The Occupy movement made entertaining press for a while, but their 15 minutes of fame is just about over. Time to move on, people.
Re:They're still around? by shentino · 2011-12-30 02:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Regarding number 3, they've already confiscated dump trucks full of personal property and sent out "notices on where you can pick it up" in not only a blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, but by holding their property hostage they are attempting to run rambo over their 1st amendment rights by forcing them to abandon their posts if they want their stuff back. After which they will find the park conveniently locked and themselves unable to return.
If that isn't illegal I don't know what is.
As for number 2, the media isn't covering it because the police won't allow it. News choppers are being kept at bay by police choppers. Someone above the cops doesn't WANT media coverage. To be blunt, the 1 percent has something to hide and they're not afraid to use the cops as mercenaries.
Not only that, but the cops, in addition to telling news crews to stay out and not cover the situation, are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on.
And as for number 1, we've already lost. The rich know damn well they've got our government by the balls and they are NEVER going to let go. The fact that cops are blatantly trampling the rights of the protesters and getting away with it just shows me how deeply entrenched, stubborn, and when threatened, vicious the 1 percent really is.
Re:They're still around? by ProfBooty · 2011-12-30 02:03 · Score: 1

A lot of people forget the tea party anger against big banks, bailouts etc.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 02:06 · Score: 1

1. It takes time
In the UK we have finally started getting people to look at corporate tax avoidance after a year of protests.
2. People are getting bored says who, the media who are no longer intrested in it. There are definately thousands of people who are still there. The point of a protest is not only to get media coverage but to cause a change which while media coverage may help is not the only way.
3. the threat and use of force is no reason not to protest.
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure!

1. Protest because government is too restrictive
2. Government disbands
3. Establish new stricter government!
Re:They're still around? by dristoph · 2011-12-30 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

"1. It isn't working."
The national dialogue has shifted considerably since the protests started. I haven't heard so many regular people talking about the processes of the financial system in /ever/. It put the spotlight on the biggest profiteers of the last decade of war and declining middle class. I've seen people on the left and the right start to express the cynicism toward their elected representatives that is rightly deserved.
"2. People are getting bored."
People were already bored. On the contrary, I've seen people who have never had an iota of interest in politics suddenly start to form opinions. It's a populist movement, and even your friend who has never cared about politics outside football at least has /something/ to say about Occupy and its issues. In this age of apathy, I see that as progress.
"3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently."
The arguable excessive use of police force against the protests have only amplified valid concerns about our government's protection of the Bill of Rights. The UN itself has called into question the defense of human rights in the United States, largely due to the excess use of police force against protesters in this country. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html]
I seriously doubt that Occupy is going to bring real change...on its own. I see it more as a beginning spark. The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country, to an extent that we haven't seen in decades, maybe even this century. The impact has already taken place and the shockwave will be lasting. No matter who gets elected President and fails us yet again, the message of Occupy (and yes, the Tea Party) will continue to reverberate in the minds of conservatives and liberals alike, until we see real change.
Occupy isn't the end, nor is it the means; it's a warning.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 02:27 · Score: 1

Wait, why would it make sense to team up with the GOP? The GOP doesn't want "less money in politics".
Re:They're still around? by flurp · 2011-12-30 02:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
If you call sending a different color of corrupt, useless politicians to Washington "accomplishing something", then sure, they accomplished something.
Re:They're still around? by Baloroth · 2011-12-30 02:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember thinking this. The Tea Party and the OWS (both at the beginning) had much the same message. The trouble was, the OWS people focused most of their energy towards the wrong place, and went about it in the wrong way. Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies isn't a good way to spread your message. And the Tea Party allowed itself to get co-opted by a bunch of loons. Actually, come to think of it they both did.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

they don't have the popular support they pretend they have...So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line.
So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?
If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring, then what's your hope for motivating people to do something as boring as voting?
Re:They're still around? by Hatta · 2011-12-30 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election
No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.
(e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:They're still around? by Phaedrus420 · 2011-12-30 02:50 · Score: 1

Isn't that what they call a credit union? I'll see you there.

--
And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
Re:They're still around? by JWSmythe · 2011-12-30 02:55 · Score: 1

They wanted a revolution. They just didn't realize the extent that was required.
They had indistinct goals, and unrealistic expectations. "We are the 99% and we are poor. We are being oppressed by the 1%." Ok, what would you like? For them to close their multibillion dollar enterprises? Distribute their wealth to the 99%? Which ones? Everyone? Should the 1% stop their predatory business practices? Why should they? Because dozens of people are in a park down the road? Because thousands of people spread across hundreds of locations said so?
Asking people to close their bank accounts was impractical. The banks did a better job of it, by increasing fees, and other unfriendly practices. They lost more accounts to smaller banks, through adding fees, than any protests did.
They gathered some people together. They expressed their vague intent. When confronted by the opposition, they accepted whatever happened. They were told to leave or be arrested. A few got arrested. The rest went home.
They weren't prepared or equipped to complete a revolution. They had a generally nameless, faceless target. They had signs, and made noise. The resulting opinion was "so what?"
Skirmishes, including police using paramilitary tactics, were not responded to in kind. They simply weren't prepared or willing to handle any sort of offensive. Was there even one incident where police fired tear gas canisters or rubber bullets, and they were disarmed and then returned fire? To the best of my knowledge, no.
Your cycle of protests seems accurate. OWS came and went. Historically, if it is even remembered, it will be background noise.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:They're still around? by BrynM · 2011-12-30 03:00 · Score: 1

OWS and the Tea Party teaming up would be about as awkward as a Deadpool team-up.
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/60216/1626194-deadpool_team_up_yellow_boxes_super.jpg
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/2285/deadpool37.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-esKAm-4Bw2I/Tb6xYrDkCTI/AAAAAAAAAME/W0NZsVYoPTc/s1600/deadpool36scan4.jpg

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:They're still around? by rasmusbr · 2011-12-30 03:12 · Score: 1

There has actually been progress in how the protests are carried out. In the 1990's some of the protesters often initiated violence and the majority of protesters did very little to stop it from happening, which gave me the impression that they were basically a bunch of middle-class thrill-seekers, the political equivalent of soccer hooligans.
This year of activism and protest has been something different. These people have, to use Obama's favorite phrase, legitimate grievances. People nice up quickly when they have something to lose. Back in great-grandpa's days in the 1920's and 1930's protesters often made a point of wearing suits and ties to protests.
I'm not saying it will lead to anything, but at least it's legitimate and worth thinking about. Occupy may be gone, but something else will replace it, unless the economy and the job market makes a major recovery in early 2012, which is unlikely.
Re:They're still around? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 03:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Boy is that crap if I have ever heard it.
The protesters take over a park and start camping when the rules state you are not allowed tents or sleeping and so on. The only problem is that night number one the government didn't go in and take the place apart but instead let them trash the park and make it filthy and dangerous for everyone so that they could express there problems.
Media not covering it because the police will not allow it? WHAT? How do we know about it? Logic fails you on this one. The media is covering it. And cops trying to keep people out of dangerous areas should be stopped so that those people can get hurt? right? Media people want to go into dangerous areas because they want to make an award winning report. They want to be embedded with the troops, in this case the loonies that think trashing a park and who knows what else.Or haven't you been watching the news on how bad and dangerous those area are made by the protesters?
Stonewalling the protesters? The same protesters that are throwing things at the police that are trying to stop the violence? Also I like the one protester who's Mac got stolen, he was crying like a baby. He wants to take money from me to give to other people but he doesn't like it when people take from him.
You should be modded down not up.
Re:They're still around? by Rerracoon · 2011-12-30 03:29 · Score: 1

I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street psycho start bombing banks yet.

The first rule of Fight Club is .....
Re:They're still around? by gtall · 2011-12-30 03:34 · Score: 1

Stop pulling conspiracies out of your ass. Media will pump whatever they think can sell (Ron Paul, Occupy, etc.) When it stops drawing, they stop covering. Watching the media water and fertilize Occupy in hopes of turning it into a big seller was sickening. Now that they've realized it didn't work, they gave up. So Occupy gets to do whatever it is they doing without the Klieg lights.
Re:They're still around? by shentino · 2011-12-30 03:51 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that you seem to approve of the mac getting stolen.
Stealing is still stealing no matter who the victim is.
As far as taking money, accepting donations is miles apart from being robbed.
Re:They're still around? by Stolovaya · 2011-12-30 03:55 · Score: 1

You may want to try reading the news. Google or Bing is your friend. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/nypd-still-blocking-journalists-at-ows.html Just one article, there are many more.
Re:They're still around? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-12-30 04:00 · Score: 1

Violence is not the answer
That really depends on the question.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:They're still around? by AthanasiusKircher · 2011-12-30 04:09 · Score: 1

There are three reasons I see for giving up on the protests:
Here's a fourth, and perhaps the most important: you need some specific demands that someone can actually do something specific about.
Lots of people may agree about the sentiment behind the movement, but a protest is never going to work unless it's a protest against something specific. Martin Luther King didn't just wander around complaining about racism in random places. Sure, the March on Washington finally developed after a critical mass of support, but for the most part he got together with marches in specific cities that had specific segregationist policies or laws. You don't boycott a company because it's "racist," you target a company that takes specific racist actions that they can reverse or remedy in some way. Then you get actual progress.
OWS complaining about rich people is like a bunch of people sitting around complaining about racism. That gets no one anywhere. You need to ask a specific entity (government, corporation, whatever) to redress some specific wrong, and then you can actually make progress.
The reason OWS has little impact is because nobody is clear on what specific measures would satisfy the protest. That's largely because pervasive social problems like OWS complains about are created by thousands of entities acting in all sorts of ways. None of them are going to change unless someone has a plan to get started. No one in the 1% is going to make changes given such amorphous demands.
Re:They're still around? by blahplusplus · 2011-12-30 04:09 · Score: 1

I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street hero start bombing banks yet.
FTFY. Wanting to hurt those who are hurting others is a sign of health, not a sign of sickness. How fucked up do you have to be to sit there and be crushed by corporate power and watch other people suffer because the political system is jammed by bought and paid politicians?
After watching this you might want to bomb some banks too.
http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html
Re:They're still around? by jimbolauski · 2011-12-30 04:21 · Score: 1

They should have teamed up with the GOP instead. I know one of the OWS organizers (he handles their money) and their beliefs are surprisingly in common with the Tea party before it was co-opted by Palin and other GOP leaders.
A biggie that they both want is less money in politics.
The OWS protesters and tea party are outraged by the corporate favoritism and that is where the similarities end. The OWS main message was large companies are evil and are responsible for the financial problems where as the tea party put the blame on the government. The tea party still stay true to that same message and support candidates that align themselves with those ideologies (Palin, Paul, Bachmann, ...) , which is why Ron Paul is doing so well.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Re:They're still around? by jimbolauski · 2011-12-30 04:22 · Score: 1

A lot of people forget the tea party anger against big banks, bailouts etc.
Not so much the banks but defiantly the bail out.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Re:They're still around? by timholman · 2011-12-30 04:26 · Score: 2

So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?
And what's your solution? A revolution? Burn it all down? Execute and imprison the rich and powerful for being "enemies of the people"? Sure, just look at history to figure out how that will turn out. First the upper class is destroyed, and then the middle and lower class start fingering their neighbors, and before all is said and done, OWS will be purging their own leaders at gunpoint.
Yes, the solution IS "get out and vote". And the rallying cry should be "No more private financing of elections!" That is one point ANY rational person on either side of the political spectrum would be able to support. Elect politicians who will pledge to enact a system of 100% publicly funded national elections. Push and keep pushing that message.
Change the election funding laws, and 90% of everything that the Tea Party and the OWS are angry about will become fixable.
Re:They're still around? by lexsird · 2011-12-30 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

It does take time. And that is hard considering how conditioned we are for instant gratification.
The system is well crafted and had decades to program the populace not only to embrace their chains be to defend them. You have to admire the elegance of this propaganda system that's been established. It's resilient to change, it harnesses the intellect of it's victims to perpetuate it, to defend it and to propagate it. This is nothing new, I have traced it back when I was presenting work regarding psychological warfare, as far back as we have had written history. Controlling the masses has always been a top tier priority in regards to "governing". It's rare that we see it when we are experiencing it. Mostly we have been only able to study it after the fact and from afar. If it runs contrary to our current programing it never sees the light of day just due to the natural defenses it has.
For example we look at how the Nazis rose to power and how Stalin rose to power and how the mindsets there were cultivated and come to a fruition that allowed malevolent elements to come to power. It's easy to see their faults, but we fail to learn from these lessons because we don't apply objective reasoning and observation to our own climes.
What I find interesting is how it harnesses the intellect of it's victims. Look at how the Nazis harnessed the brilliance of it's technically minded people. Those Germans were brilliant, but on the whole, ironically, they were political morons. You have to wonder how such intelligent people can be duped. If you can't see the brilliance in German engineering of weapons at the time, you are historically ignorant. German equipment was frankly awesome. Their tanks were something to rightfully fear, we managed to beat them out of sheer numbers. We zerged them with cheaper tanks frankly.
Though intelligent, they were still manipulated, so intelligence isn't a safeguard against it. This is a disturbing thought, because naturally one would think an intelligent population would have immunity to it. It doesn't. In fact, as I read comments here, I see many intelligent people remarking, but to my dismay I can see the influences upon them. What I see is an emotional subset mentality that is bound to people's inner personality core. This is engaged at a subconscious level as they evaluate the situation, not formulating their intellectual responses, but it's the driving force behind their responses.
What we are dealing with is emotional (for a lack of a better term) programing at a low level of consciousnesses. This has always been the case in the past, and it's worked in situations where it's needed to provoke people to do something that is contrary to their own good health. For example, it's often used to rally a population to war. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to get people to go fight for something that frankly has no effect upon them except in some abstract reason that effects them at some base emotion, hence steering their intellect into not only excusing it, but putting the full blunt of their being behind it.
Granted, this is a needed thing when it comes to the overall good of a large entity of people, but when it's used to further the gains of a few, it's classically been the downfall of whatever group of people that its effected. Democracy was a fragile experiment, a seemingly vain attempt in face of this powerful influence to give the average person an objectivity and ability to rise above this kind of mindset. It succeeded to some extent because it's founding fathers were brilliant deep thinkers, hailing from a time in our country when we had the best and the brightest from Europe, here on our soil, seeking to expand not only their freedoms but their minds.
The frontier atmosphere that allowed that kind of mindset to blossom has been smothered. There are no frontiers where the free thinking can roam now. Control has been established.
My challenge to anyone who fancies themselves as a free thinker to try this mental exercise if you are capable

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:They're still around? by pseudorand · 2011-12-30 04:36 · Score: 1

The 99% are simply those of us who control a piddly 1% of the money, and yes, studies have show* that 1% of the people really do control 99% of the wealth, implying the inverse as well.
The problem real problem is two-fold:
1) The 99%/1% stat describes inequality in the distribution of wealth, not income. The government they're petitioning has some leeway in addressing income inequality through tax policy, but the only way to address distribution of wealth inequality quickly would be to violate the protection of private property. That would be both unAmerican and compromise our international economic standing (which we can't afford to do until we get off foreign oil).
2) The 99% are fractured into lots of different groups, all of whom need different things to correct wealth inequality. For example, I'd like to see social security and medicare payments (but not necessarily taxes) cut drastically on a means-tested basis to balance the budget. This will help me in retirement and my son when he's of working age (more job prospects). But it would be at the expense of my parents.
Those of us with jobs and marketable job skills might think 2 years of unemployment benefits is a bit much, but those laid off after 2 decades of dedicated work in a factory who truly haven't been able to find work despite trying would disagree.
Then there's the "small to medium-sized private businessman" who wants to see the 10% of the federal budget's discretionary spending cut because that 10% reduction in the 35% he pays in taxes (boosting his income by 3.5%) would double his profit margin. No matter that a 10% cut to the military budget would save him more in taxes. No matter that his business is based on technology developed by similar government funds in the past. No matter that many of his customers are the federal employees who will be laid off. No matter that those funds pay for the maintenance of federal highways and other transportation infrastructure that his supply chain relies on. No mater that the regulatory agencies funded by that 10% ensure everything from his ability to move capital reliably and securely to the safety of his children's drinking water. That 10% is what's wrong with America today, and it's the only thing keeping him from joining that 1%.
So, as you can see, there really is a 99%, but the the only thing we agree on is that we hate the 1% and we want more money for ourselves. We just don't want everyone else to have more money too, because the then prices would go up and what would be the point of having more money. Fucking 1% got it pretty locked down, don't they.
* It's the internet, so I don't have to provide any actual citation to back up my claim, even though the concept of hyper-linking makes doing so very easy. I swear I read that somewhere though.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 04:39 · Score: 1

He gave you the answer, do what the tea party did. Find candidates who will run in the primaries and support your position. It didn't work in every state, Christine O'Donnell didn't win, but it worked in Kentucky and a number of other states. Now there's a core group of congressmen who are actively pushing for the tea-party platform in congress.

That's not the only way to do it either, the Democrats in Wisconsin have a different strategy, recalling a number of politicians. They haven't reached all their goals either, but they have made a difference.

If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring
Complaining is easy, everyone complains. Come up with a solution and then you might have something.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 04:44 · Score: 1

The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country,

What complaining about disparity of opportunity? All I've heard people do is complain that others have more money than them. And if you want to equal out everyone's money......that opportunity was missed in the 1930s. Not very many people want that now.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by MarkvW · 2011-12-30 04:45 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, without adequate due process any government can declare any dissident group a "terrorist movement" and can then invoke the antiterrorist laws against them.
Re:They're still around? by sjames · 2011-12-30 04:52 · Score: 1

They're still protesting. It's a bit harder with police engaging in chemical warfare and the venues are changing, but the protests continue.
Re:They're still around? by efalk · 2011-12-30 04:52 · Score: 1

4. It's winter and it's no fun camping out at the protests. Let's see if they come back in the spring.
Re:They're still around? by mrjimorg · 2011-12-30 05:10 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that it was co-opted by the republicans as much as shunned by the Democrats. I kept waiting for a candidate to come out as a Tea Party Democrat (in a Red State). It would have taken some courage, but they would have automatically been given the power to define a portion of a large, growing movement. Instead, democrats realized that the media was on course to destroy the Tea Party and decided to step back and watch it occur. A similar case could be made about a Republican candidate who puts support behind OWS. In places where OWS was big it could have provided a challege to the 1 party system.
Re:They're still around? by DaveGod · 2011-12-30 05:15 · Score: 1

and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement,
citation needed.
Or are you referring to their including info regarding the protests in their regular circular which is used primarily to inform local businesses of relevant threats? The circular is an obvious place to include it and in it they are referred to as "peaceful" and "activists". The alternative would have been to print a specific leaflet, even though it would be going to the same people and is on the same broad topic of security, contingency planning and so on.
A bit of common sense from the police leads to headlines like "Police include Occupy movement on ‘terror’ list". Note the 'terror list' is an actual thing, and Occupy is not on it.
Desk-based "protesters" love to repeat and hype up this drivel ad nauseam but anyone with the slightest bit of sense can't miss the stench of bullshit. This then taints the entire movement by putting doubt on the credibility of any claims.
Re:They're still around? by DerekLyons · 2011-12-30 05:16 · Score: 1

While it's a natural tendency (especially for those of us more comfortable interacting with technology than our fellow humans) to avoid mass movements, there is a substantial history of government changes in response to these forces.
Yes, there's a history of changes in response to mass movements.

But what you, and the other apologists for OWS miss, is this is nothing like those mass movements. The ones you quote with such relish were broadly based and supported by political and legal actions - the protests were just the very visible symptoms of something much deeper and much more organized. Precisely everything that OWS isn't.

But OWS and it's apologists are politically naive and uneducated and have mistaken the visible symptoms for the whole of the matters. Combine this with the nature of protest in the internet era (where 'liking' and 'forwarding' are taken as being equivalent to actually accomplishing anything) and you've got a recipe for exactly what happened - a bright splash followed by a quick descent into the dismal darkness where other forgotten memes and viral reside.
Re:They're still around? by The+Analog+Kid · 2011-12-30 05:19 · Score: 1

When the media actually wants Ron Paul for President let me know. So far all I've been seeing are articles drumming up the racist articles from 20 years ago that he didn't write and has disavowed.
Re:They're still around? by 0123456 · 2011-12-30 05:30 · Score: 1

So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting?
Many of the bankers are evil scum, everyone knows that.
The '99%' are unsuccessful because they're bunch of smelly, clueless Marxists complaining that they can't get jobs, when anyone of clue can see precisely why no-one would want to hire them. Their solutions to this problem all involve taking everything that people with jobs make and giving it to the government so the government can give it to them.
And now it's getting cold and wet and snowy and they're going home to live in their parents' basement and rant to each other about how they're going to start the revolution, man.
Re:They're still around? by arth1 · 2011-12-30 05:36 · Score: 1

The protesters take over a park and start camping when the rules state you are not allowed tents or sleeping and so on.

The right of the people to hold peaceful protests is protected by the constitution.
The governing body's answer is to make sure it doesn't stay peaceful, so it no longer is protected.
Re:They're still around? by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-30 05:40 · Score: 1

That's another trend of protests. Doesn't matter if it's the Occupiers, the Tea Partiers, the Environmentalists, the Pro-Lifers, or the Phelpses (Who get their own group, as no-one else can tolerate their company). One defining aspect of any protester is a powerful conviction in their beliefs, and in their need to share them. Loudly. With everyone. Especially those who aren't interested.
Re:They're still around? by kenh · 2011-12-30 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...
When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.

--
Ken
Re:They're still around? by grep_rocks · 2011-12-30 05:48 · Score: 1

WTF is wrong with all the people on the thread that hate OWS? Do they really thing the big bad gubernment caused the financial crisis? Do they think corporate execs are paid to little and have too little influence? Do they really think the financial sector is over regulated? Maybe the EPA caused the crisis, Fannie and Freddie Mae? Really I want to know what these people think - they bitch about dirty hippies in drum circles and how they should all get a job but what do they think casued our depression? Dirty hippies? Obamacare? Or how should it be solved - maybe we should just give our job creators more tax breaks or maybe just cut to the chase and give them all our stuff? what kind of shit goes through their heads?
Re:They're still around? by kenh · 2011-12-30 05:49 · Score: 1

Please articulate one actionable "demand" from the OWS movement. In the begining they specifically choose not to have a defined set of "demands" because it would limit their numbers, they kept it general and watched their numbers swell to include every (and I mean EVERY) conspiracy theory imaginable, and any "common complaint" they all might have is drowned out by the spectacle of the overwhelming number of fringe protesters.
It was too easy to dismiss their "common complaint" of "they (1%) have it, we (99%) want it" and their plan to sit in the park until they get it as, being generous, childish.

--
Ken
Re:They're still around? by arth1 · 2011-12-30 05:51 · Score: 1

You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
The same Tea Party who organized efforts to increase voter challenge and intimidation, making it harder for those Not Like Us(tm) to vote?
Fuck that and the horse it rode in on.
Re:They're still around? by JimCanuck · 2011-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

The hypocrite that he is.
Stop bringing logic into this, they do not want equality, they want preferential treatment, and to have everything for themselves, humans are selfish irregardless of what crap spews from their mouths.
It same as the communist uprisings of the last century, people wanted a bigger slice of the pie, and a few of them got it, the rest like this sap, ended up losing his share just like most of the people who lived under communism had happen to them.
If you had any more then your neighbors you were automatically a criminal by the virtue of being able to save/maintain your property. Therefor you must be a capitalist pig, so your neighbors turned you in, so they would be happy, that you will get punished for having more then them, which again is simply a form of selfish jealousy
Re:They're still around? by rsborg · 2011-12-30 05:53 · Score: 1

No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s.
I did get fixed... but for the 1%. The problem is that any significant populist organization (and figurehead) is either a) co-opted and corrupted, b) politically assassinated or, barring that, c) has a fatal accident or is assassinated IRL.
Feel free to call this conspiracy, but any populist organizing has been treated like terrorism against the status quo.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:They're still around? by kenh · 2011-12-30 06:00 · Score: 1

Things left behind are trash - if it was important to them to keep the items they brought to the park, they should have heeded the warnings about the coming evacuation and made plans to get their belongings out of the park. That they choose not to makes their property "abandoned" and considered litter.

"Not only that, but the cops ... are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on."
Uhm, the cops are being told the OWS protesters will handle the "rapes" internally and it is the protesters that are keeping the police out. Take a look here...

--
Ken
Re:They're still around? by kenh · 2011-12-30 06:03 · Score: 1

He wasn't "approving" of the stealing, it was the the protester was advocating taking from the rich and giving it to people like him, but when someone took something from him (his mac) he had a problem with it. If he really thinks the "rich" should give their stuff to the "poor" what was his issue with a (most likely) poorer person taking from him, a most likely richer person?
As you said, stealing is stealing, and as the old saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"

--
Ken
Re:They're still around? by Mashiki · 2011-12-30 06:05 · Score: 2

The difference between the tea party and the ows is pretty obvious. And I wouldn't even says the tea party got co-opted by loons, they got people elected they wanted elected. And they're still out there, the media is just ignoring them like they have been for the last 8mo. The ows on the other hand, got all the media attention they wanted, because the media wanted to help them.
The messages are fundamentally different too. One wanted smaller government, the other wanted more government control. If you couldn't see that, you weren't paying attention.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:They're still around? by whoop · 2011-12-30 07:12 · Score: 1

That sounds just like this Youtube bit. Protesting for the sake of protesting, pretty much.
Re:They're still around? by Phrogman · 2011-12-30 07:17 · Score: 1

The US seems to be far more right-wing by default than most other countries. Up here in Canada, Obama would be considered a Conservative. By and large most Americans seem unable to distinguish between Communist (Left-Wing extreme) and Fascist (Right-Wing extreme), at least by the posts I see on the web at places like /. and CNN.
On /. the posters seem to tend towards the very ultra-right-wing typically. Not sure why that is but the sort of shit that regularly gets posted here (and then modded Informative) just baffles me.

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 07:38 · Score: 1

He gave you the answer, do what the tea party did. Find candidates who will run in the primaries and support your position.
Yeah? How is that working out for you?

Now there's a core group of congressmen who are actively pushing for the tea-party platform in congress.
You mean there are a group of Republicans who pander to "tea partiers" in public speaking events.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 07:44 · Score: 1

The '99%' are unsuccessful because they're bunch of smelly, clueless Marxists complaining that they can't get jobs, when anyone of clue can see precisely why no-one would want to hire them. Their solutions to this problem all involve taking everything that people with jobs make and giving it to the government so the government can give it to them.
Well they're unsuccessful because people in power have done what they always do. They either co-opt popular movements and turn them to their own goals, or they raise of the worst people within the movement as a straw man and tear them apart. Even if the OWS people were all clean-cut middle class people except for 1 hippie, the news would be showing you the hippie.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 07:48 · Score: 1

Well first, that's 1 candidate in 1 election. The Republicans are not in favor of campaign finance reform. Second, McCain was pulling in less money to begin with-- when you get into a boxing match with a man whose right arm was amputated, don't be surprised if he wants you to agree to only fight with your left hand.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 07:54 · Score: 1

Please articulate one actionable "demand" from the OWS movement.
From the Wikipedia page:

The Guardian interviewed OWS and found three main demands: get the money out of politics; reinstate the Glass-Steagall act; and draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.
The demand to "get the money out of politics" may be vague, but there were more clearly actionable demands related to this. For example, there seemed to be a consensus that they wanted a constitutional amendment that stated that corporations were not "people" and were not therefore entitled to the same constitutional protections as people.
Re:They're still around? by Dr+Fro · 2011-12-30 07:54 · Score: 1

I heard a good (but perhaps somewhat over-simplified) explanation on this. It defines crony capitalism where businesses pay lobbyists to have the government make rules that benefit them. Rinse, lather, repeat. OWS is attacking the businesses/lobbyists portion. The Tea Party is attacking the government making rules to favor certain businesses over others. Just like so many corporations donate to both parties so they are covered in both cases, its in their interest to make sure that if the government is handing out favors anyway, to make sure they get theirs.
In other words, do you hate the player or hate the game?

--
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-30 07:58 · Score: 1

Yes, the solution IS "get out and vote". And the rallying cry should be "No more private financing of elections!"
So is the solution to get out the vote, or to have rallies in favor of ending private financing of elections?

That is one point ANY rational person on either side of the political spectrum would be able to support.
And yet people don't support it. Even if you "get out the vote", this isn't something that people get to vote on. Even if people were able to vote on it, it probably wouldn't pass in an election. So...?
Re:They're still around? by Fned · 2011-12-30 08:50 · Score: 1

The ows on the other hand, got all the media attention they wanted, because the media wanted to help them
'
whaaaaaat
OWS was all over the internet for like two weeks before there was a single MSM acknowledgement of them. Since then, they mostly did nothing but try to marginalize them by avoiding showing the sensible members and repeatedly claiming they had no consistent message.
Meanwhile, what, exactly, has the Tea Party done lately? This is a genuine question.
Re:They're still around? by lupine · 2011-12-30 09:02 · Score: 1

Fuck you. Seriously. The downfall of my country is not just another dysfunctional reality show.
By the way how is the weather there? Cost of living? Employment opportunities? Government Corruption? I could really use a change of pace.

--
We have the best government that money can buy.
Re:They're still around? by Fned · 2011-12-30 09:07 · Score: 1

He wasn't "approving" of the stealing,
Yes, he was.

it was the the protester was advocating taking from the rich and giving it to people like him,
No, he wasn't.

but when someone took something from him (his mac) he had a problem with it.
Of course he did.

If he really thinks the "rich" should give their stuff to the "poor"
The "rich" should stop taking from the "poor". That's the message. That has always been the message. Stop pretending to be an idiot.

what was his issue with a (most likely) poorer person taking from him, a most likely richer person?
He doesn't like being taken from.

As you said, stealing is stealing,
Event when it's called a "bailout" or "leverage" or "credit default swap" or some other financial manipulation that siphons money while producing absolutely nothing of value.
Even when it's everyone getting paid less for more productive work, while the "job creators" pocket the difference.

and as the old saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"
Nothing that's happening now is good for the goose or the gander. When the 1% have ALL the money, who the fuck will their companies' customers be? Without customers, there is no revenue, and without revenue, there are no jobs. Period, full stop, end of fucking story. The economy sucks because they took all our money and left nothing in return for us to trade with, and it will continue to suck until something changes.
Trickle-down doesn't work, because of the associated surge-up.
Re:They're still around? by dristoph · 2011-12-30 10:01 · Score: 1

One of the oft-repeated falsities used to discredit Occupy is that they're just a bunch of socialists looking for handouts and an even distribution of wealth. That's simply untrue; 99% of the protesters are capitalists who never want to see another bailout (socialism for "Too Big to Fail" banks) and want the Glass Steagall act reimplemented. That act, by the way, was an opportunity we did /not/ miss in 1932, but which had its teeth taken out in 1999.
There are valid arguments to be made against Occupy. The argument that they just want Communism or an even distribution of wealth is not one of them.
Re:They're still around? by shentino · 2011-12-30 10:06 · Score: 1

If you say guilt is just like a gun, then I'd also say that gaming the system by paying off politicians to make rules in your own favor is just as much like a gun.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 14:22 · Score: 1

Your post is a perfect example of someone who has taken cynicism as an excuse for not thinking.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 14:27 · Score: 1

I've been to an occupy protest and I'm not certain that 99% of them have even HEARD of Glass Steagall. Many people look at the OWS protestors and project their own desires onto the protestors. It is easy to believe the protestors want what you want when they have no clear agenda. You seem to have fallen for that trap.

Also, it's unlikely that the repeal of Glass Steagall caused the crisis; Canada never had an equivalent regulation, and they made it through the crisis relatively unscathed.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by dristoph · 2011-12-30 15:20 · Score: 1

Here's a link on Occupy's official website explicitly endorsing bringing back Glass Steagall:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-up-the-banks-the-glass-steagall-act/
Meanwhile, I can't find anything on their website explicitly asking for handouts or an even distribution of wealth. I've also been to an Occupy protest, and I didn't run into a single Communist. So tell me again, who is projecting on the protestors, you or me? Who is falling into what trap?
The real trap is participating in the campaign of intentionally misleading others about the message. First you claimed that they just want handouts and wealth redistribution, and now you're claiming that they don't know what they want at all. Obviously it can't be both, so which is it?
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 17:54 · Score: 1

Oh yeah? So now there's an official website of this leaderless organization, eh? Who put THEM in charge?

Look, here is what you said:

The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country,
I said I haven't heard anyone talking about the disparity of opportunity. I don't even know what disparity of opportunity YOU PERSONALLY are talking about. I HAVE heard a lot of people say, "we are the 99% and you are the 1%," which is clearly pointing out the fact that someone else has more money than them. It's not a commentary on opportunity.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 18:36 · Score: 1

That you don't understand that Communist and Fascist are both left-wing shows that you've swallowed every last ounce of the bullshit.
Obama has in the top levels of his administration at least one left wing bomber, and by bomber I mean he literally made explosive devices for the purpose of destroying US government buildings and killing the people therein. If that's considered Conservative in Canada, you're screwed.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:They're still around? by Xeranar · 2011-12-30 21:37 · Score: 1

The tea party pushed for socially conservative and moderately incompetent candidates that won in rural states. In other words they were republicans who succeeded in pushing their own party further to the right. They were never against anything but the bailouts and actually believe that somehow freddie mac and fannie mae caused the collapse of our economy along with minorities who were given unsecured loans through government programs (total: 6% of all bankruptcies). The OWS were politically naive and were part of that political center who assume right and left are alike. In the end the OWS message was taken by so called "true americans" as hippies and such. Essentially your fundamental belief that they were druggies and/or losers is reason enough to realize you're clueless and this knowledge will bounce off you..but maybe you'll learn.
Re:They're still around? by dristoph · 2011-12-30 21:51 · Score: 1

"Oh yeah? So now there's an official website of this leaderless organization, eh? Who put THEM in charge?"
My understanding is that a democratically elected and audited committee formed within Occupy is in charge of the website. It's been around for quite a while. There isn't a single "leader of the website", but the members of the committee in charge of it can be voted out and replaced.
"I said I haven't heard anyone talking about the disparity of opportunity."
I hear it all the time. Just for one example, one of the biggest issues of disparity is the steadily rising cost of tuition for higher education, both private and state-funded, throughout the country. If you want a higher education and like the vast majority of Americans can't pay the insane tuition yourself, you have to go into substantial debt and then possibly face a dismal job market after you graduate, leaving you with no hope of paying off said debt. If you haven't heard people talking about that then I really can't help you from here, except perhaps to recommend meeting people outside your own socioeconomic bubble.
And how's this for disparity of opportunity? If you're a multinational corporation influencing our national elections with billions of dollars of campaign donations, well that's freedom of speech. But if you peacefully assemble in a park to denounce the takeover of our democracy by such monied interests, well that's terrorism (already in the UK, and I'm sure it won't be long here in the US too).
These are just two issues I've seen repeatedly taken up by the Occupy protestors, both online and on the streets, and they share the common thread: 99% of us are getting a sour deal. The few wealthiest people and corporations at the top of America's economic pyramid more and more have free reign over our government and our daily lives, which they are using to get richer while everyone else gets poorer. And this is allowed to happen because our politicians are bought out; they either fail to enact needed regulations or enact regulations written by the very companies being regulated (often with the aim of further securing the status quo of the industry while making smaller competitors easier to weed out).
I would argue that Occupy has brought these and similar issues into the forefront, whereas before, most people, especially younger people now recovering from the plague of apathy, just complacently accepted the situation as unchangeable. Not anymore. I can name a handful of my own friends who never cared about politics before suddenly forming opinions and joining the dialogue, sparked by Occupy's presence in the news. This is a good thing.
Re:They're still around? by Maritz · 2011-12-30 23:45 · Score: 1

I think it could be, he only wants to see the hippy, and his fave news will always ensure that's what he sees. ;) Once people are far enough along the trip to one side of the ideological spectrum they will actively shut out and ignore any apparently contradicting information to their dogma. Saddest thing about the default mode of human thought.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:They're still around? by Maritz · 2011-12-30 23:57 · Score: 1

He wants to take money from me to give to other people but he doesn't like it when people take from him.
What a pathetically facile straw man. You should flip to another channel than Fox for a few minutes. You won't though.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:They're still around? by Maritz · 2011-12-31 00:05 · Score: 1

That you don't understand that Communist and Fascist are both left-wing shows that you've swallowed every last ounce of the bullshit.
From - "The Doctrine of Fascism": "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."
It may have started left or central but gravitated far to the right very early in its history. It is violently opposed to any 'left wing' ideology you'd care to mention.

Obama has in the top levels of his administration at least one left wing bomber, and by bomber I mean he literally made explosive devices for the purpose of destroying US government buildings and killing the people therein.
If this is a joke it's woosh on me, sorry. What on earth are you on about.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-31 02:15 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you mean. You implied that OWS should emulate the Tea Party people because of their success, but the Tea Party is a complete failure. They allowed themselves to be co-opted by a major party that didn't share their beliefs, and allowed themselves to get painted as stupid, racist, whack-jobs. All of this was to get more support so that they could get people elected into office, and then the people that they elected are no better than the people they replaced. Essentially they sold their souls in order to achieve their goals, and then it still didn't achieve its goals.
The Tea Party should be considered a cautionary tale on what a movement like OWS should *not* do.
Re:They're still around? by Baloroth · 2011-12-31 04:34 · Score: 1

I said:

Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies...
You said:

Essentially your fundamental belief that they were druggies and/or losers...
Learn to read before you call someone else "clueless", please.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:They're still around? by Xeranar · 2011-12-31 05:58 · Score: 1

Belief and looking like in this case are identical. Nobody in normal circles were assuming they looked like losers or druggies. In fact if you traveled in average circles people were initially confused by the movement and only when Fox News and Right-wing radio started calling them druggies and losers did the public image shift at all. It's a matter of perception and your perception is tied to your belief in this case, it wasn't as if you discounted your own notion, you used it out of hand. So perhaps I may have overstated but your own statement damns you.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-31 06:11 · Score: 1

You idiot.

and allowed themselves to get painted as stupid, racist, whack-jobs.

You're saying they shouldn't let people call them names? I don't see them as any stupider or more racist than the rest of America, including you. You're stupid.

then the people that they elected are no better than the people they replaced.
Duh, of course you don't think so, you don't like the tea party ideas to begin with. But the people they elected DO represent tea party ideals more than their predecessors. If that were something you liked, you would like those congresspeople more. Please wake up.

They allowed themselves to be co-opted by a major party that didn't share their beliefs
No, they joined the party and began to change it. The got rid of people like Mike Castle in Delaware, and Bob Bennett in Utah. Really, if you think the tea party has had no effect on the Republican party, and on congress, you are either incredibly dense or don't pay attention.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2011-12-31 06:37 · Score: 1

You're saying they shouldn't let people call them names?
No, that they associated with racist whack-jobs and didn't distance themselves from that crowd. For as bad as it is to be associated with hippies like OWS, the Tea Party is equally associated with the xenophobic, racist, uninformed crazy people.

Duh, of course you don't think so, you don't like the tea party ideas to begin with.
Depends on which "tea party ideas" you're talking about. Libertarianism, I don't mind it so much. I object more to the "Obama is evil, but we can't figure out if it's because he's black, because he's a Muslim, or because he's a communist," ideas.

if you think the tea party has had no effect on the Republican party, and on congress, you are either incredibly dense or don't pay attention.
It has had an effect, but not the effect the Tea Party was originally looking for. Bigger than the effect that the Tea Party had on the Republicans was the effect the Republicans had on the Tea Party-- they got the Tea Party to abandon their ideals and good sense in pursuit of political power.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-31 06:53 · Score: 1

No, that they associated with racist whack-jobs and didn't distance themselves from that crowd. For as bad as it is to be associated with hippies like OWS, the Tea Party is equally associated with the xenophobic, racist, uninformed crazy people.
You must be hanging around with liberal democrats based on how you associate things. If you hung out with Republicans more often you would associate OWS not with nice hippies, but with rapists, anarchists, and homeless people (and I do believe your opinions are primarily based on who you hang out with or used to hang out with, you don't seem to be the type to do the research necessary to come up with reasonable opinions on your own).

Depends on which "tea party ideas" you're talking about. Libertarianism, I don't mind it so much. I object more to the "Obama is evil, but we can't figure out if it's because he's black, because he's a Muslim, or because he's a communist," ideas.
The primary motivating ideas behind the tea party are "taxed too much" and to a lesser extent, "follow the literal interpretation of the constitution." Because "follow the literal interpretation of the constitution" is nearly as poorly defined as "we are the 99%," the "taxed too much" movement has had a bigger effect.

Bigger than the effect that the Tea Party had on the Republicans was the effect the Republicans had on the Tea Party-- they got the Tea Party to abandon their ideals and good sense in pursuit of political power.
I'm not sure what are talking about here. It is exactly because the newly elected tea-party congresspeople didn't co-opt with the Republican party that they've made such obvious political mistakes in the last year (poor handling of the debt-ceiling debate in August, and worse handling of the payroll tax extension this month, as examples).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2011-12-31 07:05 · Score: 1

If you want a higher education and like the vast majority of Americans can't pay the insane tuition yourself, you have to go into substantial debt and then possibly face a dismal job market after you graduate, leaving you with no hope of paying off said debt.

This is not a disparity in opportunity. Unless the 'opportunity' you are talking about is the ability to get a degree that will never pay for itself, in which case you have a weird idea of opportunity. I guess the problem is you don't know what it takes to get rich, so you automatically assume you don't have opportunity like other people.

If you're a multinational corporation influencing our national elections with billions of dollars of campaign donations, well that's freedom of speech. But if you peacefully assemble in a park to denounce the takeover of our democracy by such monied interests, well that's terrorism (already in the UK, and I'm sure it won't be long here in the US too).
Here's another example that demonstrates your lack of understanding. You complain about corporation money influencing politics, but have you ever even TRIED to influence politics with your own money? If every voter donated $100USD to the candidate of their choice, corporate donations would be minimized. Note that to a degree Obama managed to do this last presidential election, although only 3million people donated.

But do you donate? If you're like most people you don't: you just complain about other people's donations.

Not anymore. I can name a handful of my own friends who never cared about politics before suddenly forming opinions and joining the dialogue, sparked by Occupy's presence in the news.
No doubt this is good. The more people get involved in politics, the better. If everyone took an interest in politics, we wouldn't need huge campaign funds, because everyone would be willing to go to campaign websites to see what various candidates were saying. Politicians wouldn't need billion dollar advertising campaigns to get out their message.

It is the unwillingness (or not knowing how) of many people to take opportunities that gives other people the chance to make more than the rest.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by kurzweilfreak · 2012-01-01 11:54 · Score: 1

Don't forget the effectiveness of shitting on police cars!

--
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2012-01-02 04:09 · Score: 1

The primary motivating ideas behind the tea party are "taxed too much" and to a lesser extent, "follow the literal interpretation of the constitution."

You mean "were". The primary motivating ideas *were* to have a small government with low taxes based on someone's interpretation of the Constitution. Now the primary motivating idea is to increase the political power of the Republican party, everything else be damned. It's now the astroturfing wing of the Republican party, and nothing more.

You must be hanging around with liberal democrats based on how you associate things. If you hung out with Republicans more often you would associate OWS not with nice hippies, but with rapists, anarchists, and homeless people (and I do believe your opinions are primarily based on who you hang out with or used to hang out with, you don't seem to be the type to do the research necessary to come up with reasonable opinions on your own).
Well first off, let's ignore the ad hominem attack that you're trying to mount on me, because it's obvious and boring. Let's jump instead to the charge of "anarchists and homeless people", and say that there's no doubt that there are anarchists and poor people participating in OWS. These anarchists, however, are not the bombing/assassinating sort. Their actual views are fairly close to the Libertarian views that were originally behind the Tea Party. The poor-- well what's wrong with that? Would you argue that the most economically disenfranchised people should *not* support a movement to reform the political and economic system that keeps them on the fringes?
And as for rapists, well I won't defend rape, but really you're proving my point here. All of this talk about rapists, homeless people, and anarchists are all politically motivated ad hominem attacks. It's not, "This movement has bad ideas" but "this movement is made up of bad people, so please don't even listen to their ideas." The Tea Party already went down the tubes because of multiple factors, this being one of them: they did a poor job distancing themselves from 'bad people'. Worse, they handed over the reigns to one of the major political parties, which has absolutely no interest in the old "primary motivating ideas", and then that political party actively courted the 'bad people'.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2012-01-02 06:58 · Score: 1

Now the primary motivating idea is to increase the political power of the Republican party, everything else be damned. It's now the astroturfing wing of the Republican party, and nothing more.
You need to get more variety in your news, and think about it more. This doesn't match reality.

Also, I'm not really interested in your defense of OWS. I never said that OWS was rapists, homeless people, and anarchists.......just that if you hung out with conservatives instead of liberals, you would have thought that way. Also, you're the first person I've ever heard say that the tea party is like anarchists. That's kind of hilarious.

Look, I'll give you an example of how the tea-party has changed the Republican party, even the entire tone in Washington, and we'll see if even you can understand it (you are mistaken thinking this is an ad hominem fallacy: it is not, it's abuse. Look it up, there's a difference). Under the Bush Republicans, was there any attempt to restrain spending? No, there wasn't. Quite the opposite, they were happy to spend money, even if they didn't have it. Now, in the first year with tea-party in congress, how much did spending increase YOY? Spending stayed essentially the same, with a change of less than 1%. It may be unfair to give the tea-party credit for all of that, since they are one small component of government, but you're silly if you say the tea party hasn't changed anything.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2012-01-04 02:59 · Score: 1

Also, I'm not really interested in your defense of OWS. I never said that OWS was rapists, homeless people, and anarchists.......just that if you hung out with conservatives instead of liberals, you would have thought that way.
So if I hung out with conservatives, I would have a poor understanding of things?

Also, you're the first person I've ever heard say that the tea party is like anarchists. That's kind of hilarious.
Why? You do understand that anarchists and libertarians generally share many views, right? Both groups essentially want to minimize government and maximize personal freedom-- anarchists just go farther with the idea. And the Tea Party was originally a Libertarian movement. Not so much anymore.

I'll give you an example of how the tea-party has changed the Republican party, even the entire tone in Washington...It may be unfair to give the tea-party credit for all of that, since they are one small component of government.
So you'll give me an iron-clad argument that even you think is unfair. Nice. Did it occur to you that the reason for the change in tone is that the world economy is falling apart, and not because some old lady attached tea bags to her hat?
Essentially, I think you misread me. I'm not saying that I love OWS or hate the Tea Party. I'm not saying that I love Democrats and hate Republicans. I'm saying that these types of social/political movements are delicate and unlikely to survive long enough to make a difference, because they're inherently threatening to the people in power, and the people in power are... well... powerful. The Tea Party is a failure because they were absorbed by the people in power as a tool to keep themselves in power. OWS looks to be failing in another direction; the people in power are waging a successful PR war against them.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2012-01-04 16:15 · Score: 1

So if I hung out with conservatives, I would have a poor understanding of things?
Yes, but that's because of your poor information gathering skills, regardless of which ideology you happen to hold.

I'm saying that these types of social/political movements are delicate and unlikely to survive long enough to make a difference, because they're inherently threatening to the people in power, and the people in power are... well... powerful. The Tea Party is a failure because they were absorbed by the people in power as a tool to keep themselves in power.

Of which this is a perfect example. If you weren't so blind, you would realize the tea-party has made a difference. Sorry.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2012-01-05 02:11 · Score: 1

Sorry, I can't gather information that doesn't exist. I understand that you'd prefer that I be poorly informed so that I'd agree with you (which is an amazing argument to make), but I don't have any desire to be a political shill for any party.
The Tea Party has made no difference. They're now just the fake grassroots (organized by lobbyists, politicians, and FOX) movement that preaches xenophobia, the restriction of our rights (except the right to bear arms), and tax cuts without spending cuts (and if they're in favor of spending cuts, it's all about cutting social programs). In short, they're neocons. If you're so great at "information gathering", go gather some information and tell me about their accomplishments.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2012-01-05 17:48 · Score: 1

I understand that you'd prefer that I be poorly informed so that I'd agree with you (
I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I'd prefer you not be an idiot.

The Tea Party has made no difference. They're now just the fake grassroots (organized by lobbyists, politicians, and FOX) movement that preaches xenophobia, the restriction of our rights (except the right to bear arms), and tax cuts without spending cuts (and if they're in favor of spending cuts, it's all about cutting social programs). In short, they're neocons. If you're so great at "information gathering", go gather some information and tell me about their accomplishments.
Please tell me you at least read something besides Daily Kos.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're still around? by nine-times · 2012-01-09 05:19 · Score: 1

I don't read the Daily Kos. I do read the NYT and watch PBS, which you probably think makes me a communist, but I pay attention to various news sources.
Re:They're still around? by phantomfive · 2012-01-09 14:51 · Score: 1

I do read the NYT and watch PBS, which you probably think makes me a communist,

I don't care if you're a communist. I care if you have good data to back your assertions.

but I pay attention to various news sources.
Good.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

One stop shopping by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:17 · Score: 1

For the police gathering intel on your little protests....

Re:One stop shopping by Jarryd98 · 2011-12-30 01:19 · Score: 1

I'm not sure whether they've yet realised that, despite repeatedly using the term 'distributed', they're still designing a Honeypot(TM)?

What history taught us is by TheTruthIs · 2011-12-30 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.

Re:What history taught us is by LS · 2011-12-30 11:13 · Score: 1

Nice platitude, but you are exposing yourself as a mindless parrot.
You might as well tell people to beware of rednecks and niggers while you are at it.

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Re:What history taught us is by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 18:47 · Score: 1

"Hippy" implies a belief system which includes such things as poor hygiene, opposition to property rights, and little ambition. Not good for business.
"Redneck" implies outdoor physical labor in the southern US.
"Nigger", to use your rude language, implies nothing but ancestry.
I can see where the unjustified bias is.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Take a page from the Tea Party by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:32 · Score: 1

I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but what makes you think that Tea Party members are in the 1%?
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 01:34 · Score: 1

The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.
Well, if the TEA Party is winning elections, they must by definition be a lot more than 1% of at least the subset of actual voters.
Thought experiment; If all the OWS protesters assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial, do you think it would be easy or hard to tell the photos of that OWS crowd from the photos taken of the 9/12 crowd based on the number of people visible?
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:36 · Score: 1

I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but what makes you think that Tea Party members are in the 1%?
He's talking about them being less than 1% of the population.
Geeze!
From now on is "1%" going to mean the super rich?
"There's less than 1% sugar in this lettuce."
"What does the super rich have to do with lettuce?"
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:42 · Score: 1

The OWS started out with many of the protesters standing around being paid to stand around by the Unions. At its heat it is not a natural movement. It is a synthesized movement. President Obama has expected for months that he would be running against Mitt Romney. A man with a past firmly entrenched in Wall Street. This is all about framing Mitt as part of the 1% and the raising the ire of the American voter.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 01:54 · Score: 1

I'm sure it didn't affect the Tea Party's ability to get officials in office that they had the backing of several billionaires... nah, money has no importance in politics.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by jduhls · 2011-12-30 01:56 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, most of our options are always from the 1%:
google news search results for "how you keep getting ripped off"
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Riceballsan · 2011-12-30 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

It would be nice, but the question is how and who. The tea party wasn't originally founded with their heads perpetually up their respective asses. That came later and mostly once they started picking candidates, and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement. I agree OWS should form into a political party... but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by whargoul · 2011-12-30 02:02 · Score: 5, Funny

From now on is "1%" going to mean the super rich?
Yes. Just like from now on "99%" is going to mean "liberal hippie activist nutjob".
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by thetoadwarrior · 2011-12-30 02:05 · Score: 1

They win the elections where no one shows up. When they start winning elections during the presidential cycles then they might get some credibility.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by shentino · 2011-12-30 02:07 · Score: 1

It won't work.
First of all, you need to rub elbows with the media to get the air time you need for votes. And said media reserves the right to refuse anyone.
Second, said media is owned by the same corporate bastards responsible for the crap the protesters are fighting against.
How much air time do you think a tea partier is really going to get before their corporate overlords have them dumped?
And good luck setting up your own station. The pocket dwelling politicians won't let the FCC give you a license.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 02:28 · Score: 1

...and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement.
Which of the many hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of local, totally independent local TEA Party groups got that cash? Because all the local TP groups in this state that I know of run solely on member donations. They struggle to keep their hosting & bandwidth charges paid for their websites.
You do realize, I hope, that there is no one national official TEA Party, just hundreds and hundreds of little local orgs, each with their own favorite issues and candidates, and taking marching orders from no one, right?
Do some googling. It's not like this info is hard to find. Unless, of course, that info doesn't comport with your partisan biases and narrow views.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by gtall · 2011-12-30 03:37 · Score: 1

According to the latest polls, the Tea Party is out of gas both fuel and the gaseous gas.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-12-30 03:46 · Score: 1

No more than the fact that they had the backing of several billionaires and numerous millionaires affected the OWS to even gather enough publicity to get started.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by owlnation · 2011-12-30 04:03 · Score: 1

The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference.
Yes. There's a number of things they should be doing in order to widen their effectiveness. They seem oblivious to the perceptions of the majority of people. People who would support them, and do agree with some of their issues.

For example: lose the dreads, cnd signs, om symbols, and rainbow crap. That shit never worked in the 60's, and it still doesn't work. Also, wash. Lose the tents.

Put on a suit. Yes, that is the uniform of "the man", but the reason "the man" wears it is to be taken seriously. Yes, it's wrong that society puts so much emphasis on how you look, but the reality is -- they do. To dress well is not selling out, it is using the tools of the enemy against itself.

Basically, stop looking extreme and anarchic. All that will do is make you easy targets for the media, and alienate you from soccer moms and blue collar workers. These people could be on your side, and do sympathize with the issues you raise. You will only bring them on board by dignified and civilized protest. A quiet protest by people in suits standing outside Wall Street, would scare the Hell out of shareholders and Government far more than a bunch of people who look like unemployed losers and precocious students. It will get media attention, and it will get the issue out there far more quickly and effectively, and it will be taken seriously by a lot more people. You can still be radical, just don't look radical.

It's astonishing that protesters are making exactly the same marketing mistakes that every protest group since the 60's has made. If you want to be ignored, dress like a bunch of hippies, sing songs, and don't wash. If you want to be heard, look like you are normal. It's really very, very simple.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by thetoadwarrior · 2011-12-30 04:37 · Score: 1

I have the distinct feeling you're going to be suffering severe depression after Nov. 2012.
Yeah because their approval ratings are stellar at the moment and Bachmann is just steam rolling the other candidates.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by DerekLyons · 2011-12-30 05:06 · Score: 2

but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.
Simple math my friend - if 50% of the 99% they claim to represent each donated $100, then they raise around 15 billion dollars. That's more than sufficient to start getting candidates into office. Hell, that's more than sufficient to fund sweeping political change the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1770's.

But OWS faces the same problem that the Tea Party and the Free State movement did - they don't actually represent as many people as they think they do.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 05:18 · Score: 1

Yeah because their approval ratings are stellar at the moment and Bachmann is just steam rolling the other candidates.
But at this point, even Ahmadin-I'm-A-Nutjob would win over Obama in a landslide, so I'm not too worried. Heck, one of my old boots would win over Obama. If teleprompters weren't allowed, the boot would also win the debates as well.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by mrjimorg · 2011-12-30 05:25 · Score: 1

The Tea Party gave her some great support and attention initially. She squandered it by making numerous false assertions in the public eye.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by 0123456 · 2011-12-30 05:32 · Score: 1

The left only understand central planning, so the idea of a popular movement organised at local level is entirely alien to them.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

Don't mod this Flamebait, it's true...very NASCAR/tractor pull-looking crowd, which to me only adds to the hilarity, people voting for more corporate power as if they're accomplished Randian supermen when they're actually working-class Joes on a modest income. It's kind of sad actually.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by kenh · 2011-12-30 06:08 · Score: 1

OH NO, say it isn't so! The Democrats are all running against the Tea Party members that are "controlling" the House and Senate - if the Tea Party is "out of gas" then, gasp, who will they run against?

--
Ken
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Fned · 2011-12-30 09:14 · Score: 1

Their members aren't.
Their funders are.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Fned · 2011-12-30 09:23 · Score: 1

There was a guy on The Daily Show the other day who had the brilliant idea for getting at least some of the money out of politics: anonymize campaign contributions by having all donations go into a "black box" trust that doles out the money to the campaign in arbitrary increments. There are no records of who contributed, only the amount, and since the output is arbitrary, there's no way to know that someone who says they contributed to your campaign actually did. Additionally, there was even some mechanism for withdrawing your contribution prior to a certain point.
Apparently they tried this in a judiciary race somewhere, and it worked too well; nobody contributed anything to any of the candidates...
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by Pharmboy · 2011-12-30 09:54 · Score: 1

I know lots of Tea Partiers, and even attended one of their rallies. I'm not one of them but at least I know wtf I'm talking about. None of ones I know are 1%ers. 5%ers perhaps, but not 1%ers. None are pulling in a million a year. Are they more successful than average? Yes, by a good margin, and many are self employed. Last time I checked, that was a desirable goal in the USA.
To stereotype this way is just ignorance.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by CtownNighrider · 2011-12-30 18:01 · Score: 1

I made this point (fielding a candidate) to a facebook friend who is an OWS member but it quickly became clear that it will never happen because OWS isn't united, and they are proud of it. Many members are literally against the idea of having a leader, they (the FB friend and his friends) want an overthrow of the government and capitalism. It's very all or nothing to them.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party by thetoadwarrior · 2011-12-30 23:57 · Score: 1

I agree, she showed herself to be an idiot, like every other tea party candidate.

Occupy..Anonymous by Freelancealchemy · 2011-12-30 01:21 · Score: 1

Maybe they can join in the endeavors of Anonymous since they were gkicked, haha. I would protest more if it meant anything, but I digress.

One Sided view really social media? by jellomizer · 2011-12-30 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

It sounds more like propaganda.

What the Occupy protesters don't realize it isn't just the 1% that really don't care for their methods or all their ideals, there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one). Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need anymore. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

We get these protest groups (on both sides) like the Tea Party and the Occupy when the economy is down. Why? For one a lot of them have extra free time so they can actually go out and protest. Secondly they are suffering right now so they are angry and passionate in their protests. However when things get better they will moderate a little.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:One Sided view really social media? by BasilBrush · 2011-12-30 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

*If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.
The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by jellomizer · 2011-12-30 01:45 · Score: 1

Yea the difference is after the great depression they renamed them as a recession because it sounds better.

This is a heavy recession, I would say it is a depression. We had Depressions before, and it isn't the Great Depression no where close to as bad, but it is on par with other Depressions we have had.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by Fuzzums · 2011-12-30 01:46 · Score: 1

Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need any more. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.
I earn enough. I work for my money. I don't fuck up other people's savings while getting huge bonuses.
That being said, the "they" you refer to is a big group with many different demands. Even if they don't all say the same thing doesn't make them wrong.
I guess everybody wants good healthcare and education for them selves or their kids.
I also guess the anger about outrageous bonuses will fade, after a while. First people will feel ashamed for betraying their old principals. Then they'll just trade them for a new set of principals.

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by Millennium · 2011-12-30 02:39 · Score: 1

Actually, there isn't a difference. The term "depression," as applied to economics, was originally coined as a euphemism for "recession." Now, of course, we've inverted things, using the term "recession" as a euphemism for "depression." Language is funny like that.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by Hatta · 2011-12-30 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.
Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.
The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).
Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."
However when things get better they will moderate a little.
Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:One Sided view really social media? by ArsonSmith · 2011-12-30 03:57 · Score: 1

"It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy."
funniest quote eva!!

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by tixxit · 2011-12-30 05:04 · Score: 1

We're in a recession that is now early in its 4th year, which would make it a depression by most standards. Recessions are normal, depressions are not. The causes of this recession are not normal economic fluctuations, but have real systemic causes, which is why it has lingered on so long.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by Osgeld · 2011-12-30 09:07 · Score: 1

yea I ought to be about 65 when it does pick up naturally
Re:One Sided view really social media? by happyhamster · 2011-12-30 09:24 · Score: 1

Keep living that complacent pipe dream. I think that without a major popular movement upsetting the status quo, the things will be stuck at their present state for decades. The 1% or whatever got the rest of the population exactly where they want them. Poor, desperate for jobs, overworked, clinging to dead-end low paying jobs, brainwashed by mass media, not questioning why a tiny minority "owns" (stole) major part of society wealth. Unless something is done, this could end up the new world order for a few centuries.
Re:One Sided view really social media? by NewYork · 2011-12-30 18:27 · Score: 1

Unless US/EU aligns Migrant/Immigrant Visas and Outsourcing to Caste system and Human Rights in CHINDIA, your middle class will be destroyed.

--
Casteism
Re:One Sided view really social media? by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 18:57 · Score: 1

We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.
Yup, because rage certainly helps people to think clearly and act productively.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:One Sided view really social media? by Hatta · 2011-12-31 02:41 · Score: 1

That said, I can't imagine why I should support undermining a system which has made possible my modest success.
Sounds like something my Uncle Tom would say.
The assumption that magical 'policy' decrees economic conditions, relative wealth of nations, dissemination of technology or availability of cheap labour and resources
Do you really believe that policy has no effect on personal and national economic fortunes? If policy is irrelevant, why not give us what we want?
Hypocrites who post about lack of manufacturing or service jobs via Iphones made in china and malaysia are not prepared to pay for (nor could they afford) these devices and services, were they realized with western labour.
Why do you assume we're unaware and unconcerned about global inequality? Socialists have always been aware of the global scope of the worker's struggle.
I'll close with the traditional 'Get a job, Hippie'
"Get a job" is today's "let them eat cake"

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Bad summary, horrible headline by F69631 · 2011-12-30 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the summary & headline one could think that they are, well, building something facebook-like and that their target audience would be people like the ones who attended "occupy wallstreet" protest. The first claim is completely inccorect, the second only partially so. Rather, they're building a non-centralized social network for organizing protests, etc. because they feel that they can't trust FB and other existing services to protect the anonymity, etc. of protesters well enough.

I guess it's a good cause. Then again, a service like that is easy to block by police states with much less public outcry than if they blocked FaceBook or similar services. Anyone with enough know-how to get around that problem probably can do what they need to through already existing services. I'm not saying that - if they ever get it finished - it can't offer any advantages so it's cool that they're doing it... But I (having some activist background myself) really doubt the project will ever get finished.

Re:Bad summary, horrible headline by bhartman34 · 2011-12-30 02:02 · Score: 1

Thank you for that explanation. It makes some sense that they don't trust FB to be anonymous enough, but on the other hand, if you go off and start your own social network composed of people who think like you, how do you draw people to the cause?
Re:Bad summary, horrible headline by Issarlk · 2011-12-30 02:06 · Score: 1

If the service is built with police states in mind it may be harder to block than facebook. They may host it on the TOR network for example.

Missing the Point by Bicx · 2011-12-30 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.

If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.

Re:Missing the Point by shentino · 2011-12-30 02:09 · Score: 1

Speaking of which, how long until some corporate overlord has a personal nerve struck and plants a TOS violation on these guys to get them removed?
Re:Missing the Point by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-12-30 15:36 · Score: 1

They don't understand even understand 19th century economics, but you expect them to comprehend the network effect?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Er what? by DrXym · 2011-12-30 01:29 · Score: 3, Informative

If you want to reach the "99%" you use the social networking tools that most people use - Twitter, Facebook etc. Creating some other site is likely to make the movement more detached, less representative and marginal than it already is at this stage. Of course probably the best thing to do is just run a few pods on Diaspora or something where if one goes down, mirrors can pop up in other jurisdictions.

I also wonder if this entity will be as censorious as some sites which were prominently supporting OWS such as BoingBoing. And if not, how is this site (robo)moderated, how does it withstand DDOS attacks and all the other crap that commercial sites have spent years developing sophisticated defences against. And what's the point again?

Re:Er what? by Fuzzums · 2011-12-30 01:52 · Score: 1

I was starting to write about the same thing, when I saw your reaction.
There are already tools for the 1% of the 99%
Sites like IndyMedia...
For the 99% of the 99% there is Facebook and Twitter :)

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Re:Er what? by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-30 05:56 · Score: 1

This was my first thought as well. They're voluntarily segregating themselves into a virtual free speech cage.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

1% vs 99% by ionix5891 · 2011-12-30 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am fucking sick of a bunch of hippies speaking for me and the rest of the 99%

Especially a bunch of hippies with a full belly and iphones who are better of than the 99% of humanity

Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it interesting that people not impacted by them get so angry about them and what they're trying to do. I'm not defending their actions, but I really feel like every person I've heard bitch about them makes an emotionally charged statement about them.

Do you REALLY believe there are no issues then and these people really are entitled hippies who are angry because they can't afford to get high anymore? What would you propose instead? Do you argue that there is no ever increasing disparity of wealth? Have you not seen the charts showing that "working" (even professional) wages have not increased in proportion to that of the 1%, or even really tracked with inflation?

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by Millennium · 2011-12-30 02:35 · Score: 1

Get used to it. Projection is an important part of the eudaimonia-centric philosophy espoused by the occupiers. It's about making sure everyone has lives that other people would want to lead, rather than the lives they themselves would find satisfying, and you can't come to any kind of conclusions about that without projection.
Re:1% vs 99% by tompaulco · 2011-12-30 02:43 · Score: 2

As a middle class U.S. citizen, I consider the 99% to be part of the 1%. They are far better off than me. I have to work for my food, I can't afford (nor do I want) an iphone, my car is 11 years old, and my vacation this year consisted of driving to the grandparents and living with them for a couple of days. Screw the 99% and their incessant whining. I'm more in favor of taxing them than taxing the rich.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:1% vs 99% by dunkelfalke · 2011-12-30 02:43 · Score: 1

You say "hippie" like it is a bad thing.
Peace, dude.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:1% vs 99% by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-30 03:09 · Score: 2

full belly and iphones. lets examine you hate, line by line and word by word, shall we?
to you, people don't have a right to complain if they still have SOME food in their bellies. I guess its a threhold thing for you; you have a suffer-O-meter and if you still walk upright, you're not 'poor enough' to care about.
iphones: while I hate apple, are you really so thick and stupid as to say that owning a phone, today, is somehow anti-OWS? that's about as stupid as people who were taking pictures of protesters and pointing out all the 'corporate items' they were wearing or owning. its not about 'corps are bad'. its about big corps, big money and big politics and how they all are related and should NOT be.
you would have sympathy if they carried no phones? how would that matter so much on your hate-O-meter?
clearly you have some deep seated hatret against people fighting for their rights. I think you speak too loudy about your hate, too; and that makes me think you have an extra guilty concience. perhaps you have personally benefitted from the abuse of the working classes. perhaps you are so well off, you are too detached from the everyday problems regular working people face.
and btw, 'hippies' stopped being cool as an insult about 30 years ago!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:1% vs 99% by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-30 03:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

the loudest complainers are red-state republican in-breeders. they are brainwashed to hate ANYTHING progressive. they want to push us into a religious-run nation and to them, rich people are the ONLY ones to 'get to heaven'. that story about fitting thru eyes of needles was just for poor folks, to give them some false hope.
I do understand 'not getting it'; but I fail to understand the HATRED that I see from the rednecks. the protesters are trying to make things better for YOU, too, even if you don't like the person who is doing you a favor..
the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:1% vs 99% by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-30 03:23 · Score: 1

those that are against the OWS movement generally don't think on their own. they repeat spoon-fed sound bites that they've been hearing on faux news.
its pretty much just that simple: those in power have a good hold on the religious right, which also co-opted the republican party in the last few decades. those people are TOTALLY brainwashed. their religious leanings are an open-channel or pipeline so that faux 'news' can shove pieces of bullshit down their throats.
every day, every hour, the reinforcement and programming continues. its an information war. the tv-watching idiots in red states continue to listen and 'obey' to their masters. they have put their brains on hold and just follow orders. their pastor, their tv talking head, someone in 'authority' that they have come to trust is telling them all kinds of misinformation. intentionally and to mislead. and they EAT IT UP!
I do wish we could split into 2 countries. we really are two countries in the US. the so-called conservatives should go somewhere where they can continue on in the same lifestyle; and the rest of us can have a new deal and re-do things for version 2.0.
it will never happen though. countries almost never admit that the melting pot concept is a crock (heh). they'll continue to make a bad mix worse by polarizing us more and more over time.
like it or not, this issue is not going away. if anything, it will get worse over time. either we solve it now or have bigger problems later!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 03:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Honestly, I think most of the anger directed at them is cognitive dissonance. That's just my theory.

Anecdote time: Amongst the people I work with, the only one I know of who has a strong opinion (other than me) one way or another about the OWS crowd is a punk 22 year old who lives in a house his parents own, is married with two kids, and has, in general, everything still provided for him. The funniest thing is that, contrary to the popular opinion of the OWS crowd being spoiled brats, this one absolutely HATES them with a passion.

I think back to the kind of person I was when I was his age. Though I hardly had anything provided for me to speak of (lest of all a house), I probably wouldn't have liked the OWS people either. I was kind of a brainwashed Randist who believed that hard work and perseverance were all you needed, and the world really was a meritocracy. I believed in the American Dream. I hit the real world though, and realized what a lie it all was. I see the OWS group as a means to try to pull the wool from people's eyes, and the backlash they get is simply resentment for that.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by jamesl · 2011-12-30 03:32 · Score: 1

Do you argue that there is no ever increasing disparity of wealth?
Looks like we're seeing a decreasing disparity of wealth.

The number of Americans making $1 million or more fell 40% between 2007 and 2009, to 236,883, while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50% -- far greater than the less than 2% drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402.html
Re:1% vs 99% by __aamnbm3774 · 2011-12-30 03:40 · Score: 2

its pretty much just that simple: those in power have a good hold on the religious right, which also co-opted the republican party in the last few decades. those people are TOTALLY brainwashed. their religious leanings are an open-channel or pipeline so that faux 'news' can shove pieces of bullshit down their throats.

The democratic party does the same shit with welfare babies and 'government assistance' for every stupid thing you can imagine. When I see how poorly every government-run program behaves, I can't imagine why anyone would want to give these idiots more power/money.

Quit trying to make your point by talking down to someone, it makes you look stupid, angry and sour. I honestly believe both parties are equally shitty.

I wish more people realized that. Both parties suck beyond belief.
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 03:48 · Score: 1

The talking point of OWS is that there is a disparity between the top percentile and everyone else. This, I believe, would confirm that. The real question I ask is "Why is that happening?"

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by ArsonSmith · 2011-12-30 03:49 · Score: 1

A post full of spoon feed sound bites about spoon feed sound bites. Is that irony or just funny?

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:1% vs 99% by AnonyMouseCowWard · 2011-12-30 03:59 · Score: 2

Your number is based off of _two_ years of history, right in the greatest market crash in recent history, when your own article says:
"Interviews with more than 100 people with net worths (or former net worths) of $10 million or more, and a wave of new studies on the rich, suggest a different cause: the "financialization" of wealth. Simply put, more wealth today is tied to the stock market than to broader economic growth."

Again, from your WSJ article:
"When the economy grows, their incomes grow up to three times faster than the rest of the country's. When the economy falls, their incomes fall two or three times as much."
[...]
"Suddenly, in 1982, the wealthiest broke away from the rest of the economy and formed their own virtual country. Their incomes began soaring higher during good times. The top 1% of earners more than doubled their share of national income, to 20% as of 2008. Looking at another measure, the richest 1% increased their share of wealth from just over 20% to more than 33%."

How about this one instead, coming from the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485): "CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent."

That is through the 1987 Black Monday crash, the Gulf War, the Japanese bubble, the dotcom bubble and what have you.

So can we please agree on one thing? Over the longer term, in modern times, there is increasing disparity of wealth in the United States. It doesn't matter that the rich's income or net worth drops by 50% during a recession. The individuals involved will possibly get it back once the market recovers, and regardless, the rich as a social class are earning more and more.
Re:1% vs 99% by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 04:05 · Score: 1

I'm truly glad you enjoy being part of the race to the bottom.
Re:1% vs 99% by argStyopa · 2011-12-30 04:05 · Score: 1

It's hard to be motivated about the unfairness of the system, when the people 'protesting' the unfairness are wearing $100 jeans, carrying $4000 laptops, and talking on $500 phones. I'm not saying there aren't injustices worth having a serious protest about - but these smug, indolent, wealthy children are worthless as spokespeople.*
On that level, it's kind of a reverse Marie Antoinette: the aristocracy is bitching because their cake costs too much.
*if one was a tinfoil-hatter, one might almost say it's Machiavellian-perfect. Having issues with underclass disgruntlement at the way you're twisting the system to benefit yourself and your ultra-rich friends? Simple, start a credible protest movement but fill it with the most obnoxious, hateable, repellent individuals . Then watch as the disgruntlement dissipates between the Hobson's Choice of the OWS or no leadership at all. Nicely played, nicely played.

--
-Styopa
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 04:45 · Score: 2

Frankly, your tinfoil hat theory did pop into my head as well. Here's the counter tin-foil hat theory though: The douchebags that you're describing have been the ones consistently shown by popular media which is, in turn, owned by the people that are the target of the protest. I don't need to show where this train of thought goes.

The less hatter theory is that showing intelligent people making well informed statements about what they want changed who are living within their means but disapproving of the way things are done simply isn't as good for the ratings as showing some mocha-brained hipster who jumped on board because he's all angry at the establishment because it beat him to being established before it was cool.

Finally, I'll close by asking what is hypocritical about having nice things but desiring to change the system? Is there a particular salary level in which that you lose your "right" to complain? If so, does it vary by region, like cost of living? I personally know one person under the age of 35 who DOESN'T have a smartphone, and that's because she's a self-proclaimed anachronism. With subsidized plans, phones aren't all that much money up front anymore, and as such, really aren't the difficult to buy. I suppose I could see you saying that they're not "have nots", and as such, they don't provide an image representative of what you would respect representing their movement, but there's a big leap between that and the abject hatred they receive. What would be the ideal face for OWS then, anyway?

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 04:47 · Score: 1

Something else just popped into my head: How can they be wealthy children and be jobless hippies at the same time? Did they get all of their money from their parents? Wouldn't that make them the 1% they're protesting? That doesn't make much sense.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 04:52 · Score: 1

The problem is that anyone carrying an iphone, complaining about wealth inequality, comes across as an entitled whiner. Someone will always be richer than you, get over it. It can make you look like these people.

If you're carrying an iPhone and wearing designer clothes, you're probably in the 1% of the world, basically complaining because some other 1% is richer than you. Poor baby.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 05:17 · Score: 1

Your link is something else. I'm having a hard time grasping it as actually real, but maybe I just expect too much from humanity. The question that I've continued to ask in response to arguments like this is "at what income level does your message become legitimate?"

To take it to the absurd:

Hobo 1: The rich are the ones who have done this to us. The increased disparity of wealth has made things continually worse. We need to rise up against them and demand change. We need to get the money out of politics.

Hobo 2: Hey, your pants are somewhat less tattered than mine. You also beat me to that garbage can the other day and got all the good stuff for yourself. Hey, everyone, look at Mr. Entitled Whiner here!

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 05:23 · Score: 1

It's simple, when you aren't capable of taking care of yourself, then you can ask other people to help you. If you're totally capable of taking care of yourself, it doesn't matter how poor a hobo you are.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:1% vs 99% by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 05:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.
I can tell who the idiots are on Slashdot. They use ad hominem attacks against broad classes of people. Slashdot idiots are not real human beings.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic; but something tells me you're not.
As for my own feelings on OWS, there are a lot of facets of progressivism that I favor; but I won't join OWS or have anything to do with it. Why?
1. Actual communists and/or people toting Che Guevera posters as icons. How can anybody think that's a solution if they have any knowledge of 20th century history? Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life there.
2. Co-opted almost immediately by public employee unions, which bankrupted the city of Vallejo and will bankrupt every city and state if they get the chance. Meanwhile, the real 99% are not only not earning union wages, but paying taxes to support the PEUs, which funnel money to Democratic candidates, which support the PEUs. Rinse, lather, repeat.
If there were an honest-to-god movement to stop the corporations *and* the unions, a real movement against corporatocracy regardless of the flag it waves, then I'd join that. Sadly, OWS isn't it and neither is the TEA party.
The thing that really got me about OWS was early on when they quoted a couple women who said something along the lines of "finally the Americans are being more like Europeans". This really got to me, because one of the triumphs of America is that while Europe devolved into Fascism and Communism during the 20th century, the USA was more moderate.
What this country needs is a Theodore Roosevelt--a corporation buster but not a union man like Obama.
Re:1% vs 99% by phantomfive · 2011-12-30 06:00 · Score: 1

In the real world, if you can't take care of yourself, then you're in trouble. There isn't a magic society-fairy who will take care of all your problems.

Now, we as a society, and as individuals, can try to help you. We have welfare programs, handicapped parking, and some of us donate a lot of our time and money personally to help people. This may or may not be useful, if you can't walk, you get the handicapped parking, but we didn't do much for your problem. Sorry.

The real world is a hard, cold, mean, darwinistic place. If you can't take care of yourself, you might be screwed. Again, sorry, all we can do is try.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:1% vs 99% by HornWumpus · 2011-12-30 07:41 · Score: 1

WTF? If someone robs you, you call the cops. They aren't going to get your stuff back. They don't 'take care of you' for shit. They might 'take care of' the criminals but odds are low. Reporting crime is mostly for the benefit of others.
To file a civil tort on the other hand you need to be able to (wait for it), take care of yourself. You need to hire a shyster etc.
Weather someone can take care of themselves is very apparent. First test: Are you paying you own bills with money you earn? Lots of rich fucks can't take care of themselves, but they don't ask for help because their parents (grandparents) etc have taken care of them.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:1% vs 99% by the+linux+geek · 2011-12-30 08:33 · Score: 1

In other words, democracy sucks because it's too tough to deal with people who disagree with you, and they should be kicked into their own country. Got it.
Re:1% vs 99% by jamesl · 2011-12-30 10:50 · Score: 1

By definition, there will always be a disparity between the top percentile and everyone else.
Re:1% vs 99% by jamesl · 2011-12-30 11:01 · Score: 1

Your number is based off of _two_ years of history ...
And your numbers stopped rising and started falling in 2007. You're fighting the last war.
It doesn't matter that the rich's income or net worth drops by 50% during a recession.
How about dropping 50% in the bust following the bubble that made them rich in the first place?
... the rich as a social class are earning more and more.
"The rich" is a loosly defined economic category, not a social class.
Re:1% vs 99% by jamesl · 2011-12-30 11:04 · Score: 1

Bigot (noun). Intolerant person. Somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views.
Re:1% vs 99% by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 11:46 · Score: 1

Pedantism aside, I believe you know that the problem isn't that the top percent is higher in wealth than the 99%. The problem is that the gap is widening at ever increasing rates.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:1% vs 99% by jamesl · 2011-12-31 02:21 · Score: 1

The problem is that the gap is widening at ever increasing rates.
My original post showed that the gap is narrowing, hot widening.
Re:1% vs 99% by Xarvh · 2011-12-31 04:39 · Score: 1

Are you also fucking sick by your government and the police trampling the Constitution?
Are you also fucking sick by people like you having to pay for the mistakes of the bankers?
If not, your priorities for being "fucking sick" appear to be a bit screwed.
Re:1% vs 99% by argStyopa · 2012-01-02 07:29 · Score: 1

"Did they get all of their money from their parents? Wouldn't that make them the 1% they're protesting?"
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/
Considering the average home value of the arrested protesters in New York is $300,000+ (10% were north of $500k), and median rent is $1850/mo, yes, then, that they are in fact the 1% is precisely what I'm suggesting.

--
-Styopa

Counter-protests! by jabberw0k · 2011-12-30 01:35 · Score: 2

Signing up for news bulletins from the people you oppose, raises the delightful opportunity of staging counter-protests that are _larger_ than the "originals." This can be utilized to the great amusement of nearly everyone involved. Have fun!

Misleading by EmagGeek · 2011-12-30 01:35 · Score: 2

Make no mistake, the protesters themselves are not doing any of the work to build the site.

What is really happening is that the wealthy, politically-connected financial backers of occupy (you know, Occupy, INC), are paying to have it developed.

They are not getting it by mapkinase · 2011-12-30 01:35 · Score: 2

The whole reason social media is helping protestors is because a lot of people are using it for a lot of very different reasons.

If you limit your new social network to one course, it won't be as popular as general purpose social networks

Instead they should try to build a new social network platform for general purpose, that will be more resistant to attempts to control it. May be that is exactly what they planned to do, if only I had determination and will to read the actual article :-)

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.

what's next? by joren02 · 2011-12-30 01:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Are they gonna set up their own internet too?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Flyerman · 2011-12-30 01:38 · Score: 2

I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.

Pointless by ieatcookies · 2011-12-30 01:38 · Score: 1

I can understand the desire to move away from Facebook for communications between activists but trying to create a new social network is just not going to work. Like it or not, everyone is on Facebook and twitter. Want your cause to be picked up and spread around then you need to get it on the social net with all the people.

funny by superwiz · 2011-12-30 01:38 · Score: 1

because they don't at all represent them

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

FB and Twitter are "social networking", not . . . by wrencherd · 2011-12-30 01:40 · Score: 1

. . . "social change".

If they were, then, with full inter-web access, the protesters on Wall Street would have been as successful at bringing about change as were the protesters in Tahrir Square (sometimes without it).

Change by markdavis · 2011-12-30 01:43 · Score: 1

Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.

As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:

1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.

2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.

Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over.

Re:Change by Thavilden · 2011-12-30 02:01 · Score: 1

I think "hippie demonstrations" and posting online are part of that "help make others aware" bit in number 2. But since you then follow up with that 1 and 2 don't change anything anyway, I guess the thesis still stands.
Re:Change by markdavis · 2011-12-30 02:12 · Score: 1

The demonstrations and posting online are not helping people become aware of a solution or cause of action. It is just complaining.
And 2) *can* change something, just not easily, and not if you vote for people solidly in the two party system. You either have to look for a change candidate that barely fits in party box (like Ron Paul) or support another party. It is a long shot- because, probably, for another party to work, there has to be reform, like elimination of the electoral college and changing to a runoff type voting system. I doubt the two parties in power will allow such changes.
Re:Change by shentino · 2011-12-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Number 1 is not any use because the fat cats can out vote Joe Q Public and his buddies any day. Plus with them able to get federal reserve loans at zero percent, and make infinite money by lending them out at exorbitant rates, they can always get more.
I propose number 3: Stop using credit.
A big source of the 1 percent's lifeblood is interest revenue on credit that the 99 percent are using.
But have people tighten their own belts and stop letting interest bleed them dry while the corporate vampires just get fatter, and you'll see change.
If you want the enemy to starve, the last thing you do is let them milk your cows.
Re:Change by truavatar · 2011-12-30 02:19 · Score: 1

"My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over." You do realize that this point is exactly what the OWS protests are about, right?
Re:Change by markdavis · 2011-12-30 02:33 · Score: 1

That is not the message I got from their protests. It was more of just complaining with no rally to any particular goal of action. To many, it just looked like a generic cry of support for extreme "left" Socialism.

Looks to me... by AkaKaryuu · 2011-12-30 01:46 · Score: 1

like SOPAs first target.

Re:Looks to me... by shentino · 2011-12-30 02:16 · Score: 1

If Facebook's "all your base are belong to us" TOS doesn't nail them first.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 01:46 · Score: 4, Funny

I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.

I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Using Drupal by jduhls · 2011-12-30 02:01 · Score: 1

FTA:

an open-source content-management system for web sites called Drupal, which [the system] will run on.

Discuss.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 02:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Modern Progressivism and Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were so great, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.

Their ideas and policies are so bad, nobody would pay them any attention unless government made them mandatory.

That was the whole point.

What's that thing they say here on /.?

Oh yeah.

WHOOSH!!

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Meaningless. Revolt or get lost. by bravni · 2011-12-30 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

If I see these guys putting top investment bankers' heads on spikes or something, then I will take them seriously. With fear and respect. Otherwise, they are just whiny hippies.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Tim4444 · 2011-12-30 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

This little exchange is representative of what's been happening in the lead up to the Republican primaries with each candidate (save for Ron Paul perhaps) trying to prove they have the biggest straw man bat.

Of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not OWS people really represent the 99% they claim to be or why anyone would think that a technology that has thus far apparently contributed to their continued existence would suddenly need to be rebuilt from the ground up. I suppose first they'll need to invent their own Internet running on their own OS's and hardware before they can get back to protesting whatever it is that they're protesting.

Here is a better project. by trout007 · 2011-12-30 02:19 · Score: 1

A tool for anyone to communicate even when the authorities bring down the communications network.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kvogeltanz/dovetail-voice-to-the-people

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Here .. let me fix that for you ... by johnlcallaway · 2011-12-30 02:28 · Score: 1

What started out as a minor whine-fest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide whine-fest thanks to the use of social media.

There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone to determine how much is too much and then enact laws. Of course, those useful idiots forget that it also means limiting the income of athletes and movie stars and the 'good' corporations like Ben and Jerry's.

Please .. can we ignore these morons so they can go away. They had their moment in the spotlight, until 99% figured out how useless they really were.

--
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.

Why do they need secrecy? by sgt+scrub · 2011-12-30 02:29 · Score: 1

I would work for complete visibility instead. Use that energy to put people up for elections. Set up a site to let people know who candidates are and where candidates are needed. Give people the ability to participate in writing legislation. Choose candidates that will agree to push that legislation when they get elected. The 1% have money to buy votes for their candidates. If the 99% stay visible and active and get people to vote for their candidates they will make a change.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Re:Why do they need secrecy? by Borland · 2011-12-30 02:42 · Score: 1

Isn't that usually the question though? Do things need to be secret? I'd argue that somethings do need to be held close to the vest. But who watches the watchers?
Skilled hackers that want to prove a point against secretive organizations, that's who. We have a checks and balances system, it's just not codified into law.
Re:Why do they need secrecy? by tompaulco · 2011-12-30 02:46 · Score: 1

I agree with you. There is no need for anonymity when you represent the 99%. The 1% can't target 349 million people.
It just reveals the truth, that they don't represent the 99% at all. They are a bunch of yuppies with more money and time than the rest of us poor working slobs who are out publicly screaming for us to feel sorry for them.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by RoLi · 2011-12-30 02:33 · Score: 1

Come on, Obama and Bernanke have already shown their support, they are already the 1%.

I guess they have to go to virtual reality because Occupy-camps have degenerated into an ugly multicultural nightmare.

To know on what side an occupy-protester stands, just ask him/her whether he/she would abolish central banking.

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 02:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

The enemy is us.

We allow banks, corporations, and the government, to make decisions for all of us, that are crap, and getting worse.

The problem is education. All the individuals have different ideas as to what the problem is, so we argue among each other.

Your post is a perfect example. You figured out that the government is fucked, but you're going to give the fortune 500 a pass. You're going to give Goldmans, Merril, Citi, Morgan, and all the rest, a pass.

If all the individuals with their various "isms" attached to their beliefs, don't align on just a couple of things, we're going to lose.

And what does losing mean? It means that while nature takes it's course, and cleans our economic clock, we'll end up poorer and less free, because of top down centralized reaction to the full stepping down of American productivity and relevance.

It's going to happen one way or another. If we, the individuals, recognize that it's coming, and force the governments, corporations, and banks to do things that will do less harm to us, then we will lose less.

Maybe someday, when we find solid ground, we can start again on growth. Other countries have done it. We can be great again AND responsible. Maybe not the greatest, but us being the greatest, was in large part by making a deal with the devil.

Mercutio's wisdom by Borland · 2011-12-30 02:37 · Score: 1

A plague a' both your houses!

well maybe we need more unions as workers today by Joe_Dragon · 2011-12-30 02:42 · Score: 1

are getting alot of lucky to have a job BS.

And getting pushed to do the work of 2-3 people for the pay of 1.

On call with no added pay + getting a hard time with they take a late call and show up late to office the next day.

over use and abuse of contractors (fedex is real bad at the as they treat there drivers as employers but they are not) and they have to buy / rent the truck + buy the route + pay gas and other up keep costs. Also lost or stolen packages come out of there pay.

Re:well maybe we need more unions as workers today by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:40 · Score: 1

Hey...no one is forcing you to work for a company such as you described.
I've never had such working conditions....I would stay for a job that did.
You DO have to be mobile and willing to move to where the better jobs are...that's just the way it is today.
I certainly hope I never have to deal with any type union in my business...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

There, fixed that for you... by denzacar · 2011-12-30 02:43 · Score: 1

If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were easy, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.

You're welcome.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Good Deal by assertation · 2011-12-30 02:46 · Score: 1

Good deal. Diaspora hasn't gotten off the ground yet. The only viable social network sites out there are built on a business model of exploiting their users by discretely spying on them and selling information about them for marketing.

They can have facebook by tompaulco · 2011-12-30 02:47 · Score: 1

They can have facebook. The "1%" that they are railing against don't waste their time with facebook.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Self-hatred ruined it by RoLi · 2011-12-30 02:48 · Score: 1

What about:

4. All the self-hatred is ruining the fun. I mean seriously, when they start to offer counceling for the rapists and tell victims to shut up it might turn some people away from the movement, don't you think? It really shows that these self-hating white "progressives" really do mean it. What is more hateful than telling rape-victims to shut up and offering the dear rapist help to cope with this evil-evil society that did not give him enough welfare-money and therefore made him a rapist?

But can you form a stable movement around that culture?

There surely are a lot of progressives who will defend liberal craziness (especially here on slashdot), but when the girlfriend gets raped or is threatened, the survival instincts of most will be stronger.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2011-12-30 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

What is a liberal or a socialist?

It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:99% of the..... by ACE209 · 2011-12-30 03:03 · Score: 1

The problem is not financial systems or a group of persons that are greedy... the problem is 99% of the human race and not those hippies in tents on squares that cry about shit they don't have, cause they would not be crying if they had it!

I have to disagree here.
Part of the problem is indeed the financial system and the deregulation of it, in my opinion.
If your pension goes to hell because it was invested in some AAA rated "financial products" which where fraud you don't have to be a hippy to get angry.

--
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Private Companies for the Revolution! by stenno · 2011-12-30 03:15 · Score: 1

Without having RTFA, let me say that this can only be a good thing. It is more than alarming that private, for-profit companies like FB and Twitter have such an influence regarding the whole 'Arab Spring' and '#occupy' thingies. If i also read something like this, i get even more scared. There wont be a revolution in the US, when the main way of communication is over a third-party US corporation. I wonder why so many of these '#occupy'-protesters blindly trust this private corpo ... oh wait. USA you say? That explains it.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by rednip · 2011-12-30 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.

--
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... by RogueLeaderX · 2011-12-30 03:18 · Score: 1

The REAL enemy is NOT the banks/Wall Street/Big Corps...Its FUCKING BIG GOVERNMENT!! The government that practically FORCED banks to make loans to people who had ZERO capability of repaying the loans.

Irregardless of the [citation needed] aspect of this statement, did the government force the rating agencies and banks to repackage said loans as A, AA, AAA packages and sell them to investors? That, if anything, was a LACK of government oversight (i.e. regulators.)

The government that falls all over itself to pass laws that are written by 4-letter groups who are part/parcel of the mass media, with said laws being totally against the Constitution.

And who owns the mass media? (I'll give you a hint, it's not the government.)

With the shellacking that the "New American Communist Party" got in 2008, I strongly doubt Dear Leader is going to risk allowing another debacle like that.. Knowing how corrupt this regime is, I'd not put it past him to stage a false-flag "incident" that inflames the country, giving him the ammo he needs to declare martial law, shut down ANY sources of info besides his pet media, better known now as Pravda or the Ministry of Propaganda.

While I have no great love for our current president; I really don't get the fear that he's angling for martial law and some kind of communist agenda. He has waaay to many corporate benefactors for that to be true. You really think goldman sachs is interested in a president that wants to claim their money "for the people"? I highly recommend you spend some time studying socialism and communism before accusing the democratic party of being interested in them. No doubt there are socialists in the party, but the laws the government passes are more in line with a corporateocracy than any of the "isms."

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 03:19 · Score: 2, Informative

What is a liberal or a socialist?

As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.

To name but a few.

It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.

Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.

My bad.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... by RogueLeaderX · 2011-12-30 03:24 · Score: 1

Ok, apparently url tagging doesn't work. Here's my citations:

Rating agencies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19amWOc1GJ8

Mass media: http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm - http://www.wifp.org/MassMedia.html - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

Presidential donors: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Corporateocracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2011-12-30 03:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think you just proved mine. Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal". The world is not quite so binary. Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by AmberBlackCat · 2011-12-30 03:34 · Score: 1

I think it means the percentage of people they claim to represent, rather than the percentage of people they are. And that's the case with most heroes.

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-12-30 03:43 · Score: 2

did the government force the rating agencies and banks to repackage said loans as A, AA, AAA packages and sell them to investors?

No, because, for all intents and purposes, it was the government, in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that repackaged said loans and sold them.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-30 03:45 · Score: 1

So you say that Repubs point at anyone who disagrees with them and calls them "liberal". BlueStrat gives you examples of liberal policies, that are quite liberal by the way, and you reply with, "See, you call things you don't like 'liberal'".

He didn't label the policies liberal. He pointed out liberal policies to you. Just as you would call tax breaks for corporations who stay stateside a conservative policy, banning firearms, the "wrong" light bulbs, and generally making decisions people should be making for themselves are examples of LIBERAL policies.

Liberalism is not your problem. It's reading comprehension.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by swinferno · 2011-12-30 03:55 · Score: 1

He obviously does not, but fell for the misleading US practice of namecalling the people on the left of the political spectrum "liberals" and "liberals" in turn seems to be equated with communists...at least by some people in the States...
here in Europe a "liberal" pretty much means the opposite of communist.

clickable link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Polls Say Different by Phoenix666 · 2011-12-30 03:57 · Score: 2

In October polls indicated that the majority of Americans agreed with the points Occupy Wall Street was raising. Coverage has waned, attention spans have shifted, and holidays have happened since then but a plurality still support them despite constant work by the corporate media (esp. Fox) to paint them as dirty no-good hippies.

When you look at what they're about, and what the Tea Party was/is? about they share core beliefs, the prime among which is that the American people have lost control of their government. If OWS and the Tea Party put aside their relatively minor differences, realized they're two sides of the same coin, and worked together the 1% would be out on its ass in a fortnight. For all of our hand-wringing to the contrary, Americans are not passive Chinese or Russians who will take endless abuse, and we are still a relatively heavily armed people. Yes, the US military has citizens outgunned, but can you really see any military commander dropping napalm on suburban Houston?

When you put OWS and the Tea Party together they are the 99%. No amount of corporate media brainwashing can annul that because the underlying issues are deep, systemic, and unresolved. Tomorrow the reaction may march under a different banner than OWS or the Tea Party, but continue it will. I suspect, though, that OWS and the Tea Party were the last friendly warning the 1% will get to straighten out and fly right.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

Re:Polls Say Different by kenh · 2011-12-30 05:53 · Score: 1

"When you put OWS and the Tea Party together they are the 99%."
The vast majority of people are neither in the top 1% NOR are they part of either OWS or the Tea Party - they are what has frequently been called the "Silent Majority" and they tend not to vote, tend not to protest, and tend not to be too concerned about things outside their daily routine and say things like "What are you gonna do, you can't run against City Hall?"

--
Ken

Parallel social networks are the wrong move by Phoenix666 · 2011-12-30 04:03 · Score: 1

Everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. Building a separate social network is counterproductive. They need to broaden their appeal, not isolate themselves into ever decreasing gyres of fanaticism.

They need to focus on unassailable connectivity and access to information via ad-hoc mesh networks and darknets, a professionally produced information system, and a comprehensive, crowd-sourced, and published surveillance of the 1% and forces who are trying to control and divide the American people and forestall the inevitable change. If the 1% and its servants in the government know there is no more place to hide, they'll really feel the pressure to change. If everything they do becomes known to the American people, then their claim to legitimacy will falter. If we yank back the curtain and reveal the little man working the levers, then the illusion of omnipotence will be broken.

That should be enough to force change in America. If not, then at least we the people will have all the intel we need to take further measures.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".

First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.

Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by roc97007 · 2011-12-30 04:15 · Score: 1

Whoosh.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2011-12-30 04:16 · Score: 1

Personal attack aside, I think I understand your first point. He provided reasons why you would call someone a label, by also applying that label to the policies. Forgive me, If I don't like the circular nature of that line of reasoning.

Second, I don't hink you read all of my post. There are policies like the individual mandate that were considered "conservative" a few years ago. The term is ill defined as its pretty much used to simply describe policies and people that they don't like without having to describe why. And that's what bugs the ever loving crap out of me. Why is the only thing that is important. Not the labels. Using ill defined labels for decision making, results in poor decisions.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by SteveFoerster · 2011-12-30 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

That's not socialism, that's corporatism. I don't like either of them, but I recognize there's a big difference. By contrast, the UK's National Health Service is socialist, because the state owns everything and is the sole (or at least overwhelmingly main) provider.

In other words, socialism isn't just the absence of a free market, it's more specific than that. And it's an important distinction, because these days corporatism is at least as large a problem and not enough people are naming it and shaming it.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org

Protests are pointless to begin with by walterbyrd · 2011-12-30 04:22 · Score: 1

Specifically, what do they realistically expect? An end to greed? Good luck with that.

If they had a realistic, specific, stated objective, they may have been effective. For example: a higher tax for the wealthy, or a lower tax for the poor. Something like that.

There was a, much quiter, protest movement. I foget what it was called but it was about moving money from big banks, to credit unions and local banks. Seems to me that would get the point across much better than living in a tent in some park.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by barjam · 2011-12-30 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured. Are you advocating that we no longer provide emergency medical services to the uninsured?

We already pay nearly twice what any other industrialized nation pays for health care with lower % of people covered and worse outcomes in just about every category. And yes I am familiar with all the arguments for why we have worse outcomes in the US.

You know... by hittman007 · 2011-12-30 04:51 · Score: 1

There is a Facebook that works well for the 99% and the remaining 1% as well, its called Facebook. If they don't like Facebook there are other existing options.

--
--- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by daath93 · 2011-12-30 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are guilty of brandishing the "But Republicans" paint brush broadly. Nevermind a Republican was the figure head of the Civil Rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr) while it was opposed mainly by southern Democrats (Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama). There are many Liberal Republicans and many Conservative Democrats.

I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.

The Conservative argument is that in America, these programs promote a wellfare state in which we make the poor complacent with "free stuff" (paid for by the rich) and they give their governors more power in exchange. That this system does not encourage people to become self sufficient and successful.

I would further posit that progressivism is slavery in disguise, bringing me back to Martin Luther King Jr who had a dream of all americans being equal to "open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children." The point being they would be provided opportunity, not handed wellfare checks and told to sit down and shut up, the Government is here to take care of you.

Have a nice day.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by mrjimorg · 2011-12-30 04:59 · Score: 1

Are you being sarcastic?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by g0bshiTe · 2011-12-30 05:01 · Score: 1

Please this is /. can we focus on the nerdy stuff. If you would like to discuss politics here then please substitute names for parties. R could be Microsoft and D can be Apple or vice versa. I leave the choice to you. At least this way when I read a comment it will read more like a typical /. rant. Thank you.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Facebook for 99%? Really? by nickberry · 2011-12-30 05:03 · Score: 1

I'm guessing the so-called 1% don't use facebook, but they do control it, and if you want your product to succeed without begging for donations on a daily/regular basis like wikipedia does you're stuck getting your funding and financing through the "1%". And the first thing that jumped out at me in the article was the fact they don't like some corporate body controlling their data. Well what do they think their little project is going to do? Use data has to be store somewhere centrally, and there needs to be content control or it will be taken over by spam-bots and porn peddlers like facebook still battles. You want to know more about your users to provide them with the best user experience you have to spy on them, and eventually you or the management will be co-opted by either corporate interests, or government interests. I have been leery of the "occupy" movement since day one. I don't like their philosophy. I work hard, first in the office, and often last out, and by doing so was able to provide my employer a value to the company, we have had tough times when my hours got cut I went out and waited tables to make up the difference. I pay my bills, my mortgage, car payments, and bills are paid every month. We are not guaranteed a house, car, or even a roast in the pot, just the opportunity to gain those things if we work hard enough.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 05:27 · Score: 1

> No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.

Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?

What? Because I chose to respond to the OOP with an explanation of my sig that he flamed instead of simply outright flaming him back, and then replying to his mea culpa with a good-natured and polite acknowledgement means I'm "full of myself"??

I do not think that phrase means what you think it does.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Is this really a good use of their time? by midtowng · 2011-12-30 05:34 · Score: 1

There is pretty much no chance of them replacing Facebook, and should Facebook even be considered a target?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 05:37 · Score: 1

Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny. The rest of your list is a mis-mash of complaints, that don't show any grasp of the question asked.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 05:43 · Score: 1

"Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist." -- No it isn't. You clearly don't understand what socialism is. Words have specific meanings, and your description there is not describing the word you're using...

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 05:45 · Score: 1

The light bulb issue isn't a "liberal" issue. It's a "smart" issue. When did efficiency become something for conservatives to oppose? Oh yeah, when it became "liberal".

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 06:03 · Score: 1

Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.

But mandating that you may only purchase "efficient" light bulbs is. If they are efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly enough to be of enough benefit to be a greater value to the purchaser, that's the choice most will make.

That enough people won't make that choice with the current levels of value perceived by the purchasers without government mandate means the technology is not yet ready, and mandating their use will not change that.

It's the removing of choice that's the issue, which is tyranny by definition.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

thru 7 snows in Denver by peter303 · 2011-12-30 06:15 · Score: 1

I last passed by them two days ago. They've slept through seven snowstorms up to ten inches and minus two degrees weather. The cops have taken down their structures about once a month. They are allowed to protest from 5Am to 11PM (park hours) but up to 30 still sleep on the sidewalk. The big weekly event is the Saturday march to the Capitol, Bank HQs and Fed Reserve.

Re:Diaspora by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-30 06:20 · Score: 1

I'm sorry to say it but the Occupy movement has shown a terrible lack of technical skill at every opportunity. You'd think there would be many unemployed hackers among the ranks, but it seems that their top techies are barely at "power user" level.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 06:24 · Score: 1

The definition of tyranny is not "the removal of choice". Doubly so when the topic is light bulbs. If this is the tyranny you're worried about, we're in pretty good fucking shape...

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by daath93 · 2011-12-30 06:25 · Score: 1

So you don't want a conversation at all. I provided a wall of text and you pick out something to troll on and proceed to kill dialogue.

Message received.

"Occupy the Rose Bowl parade" by peter303 · 2011-12-30 06:27 · Score: 1

They plan to add their own float at the unofficial end of the Rose Bowl parade. They have the grudging accommodation of the police and parade officials for this protest event.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cats-paw · 2011-12-30 06:27 · Score: 1

As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who

doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare - even if it's unaffordable to 30 or 40% of the people in the country
choose your own light bulbs - nice right wing lie you have there - the regulation was for increased efficiency
choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed - because what we want is a race to the bottom and millions of people who have to scrape to get by. and how am I going to shop for health care on my less than minimum wage.
choose what toilet or shower-head you have - again, what's wrong with regulating for efficiency ? especially when it's needed to counteract the subsidization of fossile fuels ?
choose whether or not to smoke - around people who don't want to breathe your second hand smoke
or choose to responsibly carry a firearm - yeah, we should just all strap a six-shooter to our sides

dude, you seriously hate people who aren't doing as well as you are, don't you ?

you and I don't want to live in the same country - and that's part of the problem. I'll stay here, you move to Somalia.

--
Absolute statements are never true

Private profits are not "Socialist" by mathmathrevolution · 2011-12-30 06:31 · Score: 2

Socialism: an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.

In a socialist society, capital accrues to the public. Having public dollars go towards private companies is the exact opposite of socialism.

When you say ignorant shit like "Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist" you are only proving how abused and hence meaningless the term "socialist" has become in modern political discourse, especially among the right.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by HornWumpus · 2011-12-30 06:32 · Score: 1

Not to worry. In Europe, where incandescent bulbs have been banned for a while, you can now purchase space heaters that put off a nice glow. They look a lot like light bulbs.

I'm sure someone will get into the round space heater business. It's easy to get around stupid laws.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Tea Party and OWS Synthesis by MountainLogic · 2011-12-30 06:37 · Score: 1

The Tea party was started by small scale conservative/libertarian activists in a small way. The main nerve that they hit was the bailout of wall street and an outrage of not helping the people in bad economic times; this was 2009. Fox and other conservative media hyped these early small rallies (less than 100 people) far beyond its size or effect. Fox is very adept at making a tempest in a tea pot (sorry for the pun). Very quickly the very well funded radical right DC lobbying firms sold their funders on backing/using the tea part. The Koche brothers oil tycoons provided massive funding and hijacked the movement. The Koche brothers' father was Fred Koche, the founder of the John Birch Society. The Birch Society was effectively the political arm of the KKK. While it is unfair to visit the sins of the father on the sons, the Koche brothers appear to have adopted the views of their father. Hijacking diffused the core message away from economic justice to social issues. While the right wing media machine is very effective at staying on the message of the day, moving the tea party away from economic justice moved the tea party away from gaining a broader mainstream following to become a dead-end in politics.
/.ers are right, the tea part had a message because one was provided. Commentators here are also right that OWS does not have ONE message. OWS was not thought that far ahead. OWS was a movement sparked by one image created by a culture jammer in Vancouver at AdBusters.org (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Wall-Street-1.jpg). The difference from some random political flash mob is that the turnout was unexpectedly large and dedicated.
The key takeaway, as some have noted, is that economic justice and outsized corporate influence are issues that are resonating with every political group from libertarian to conservative to progressive. When the same concerns are shared by suburbia, the bible belt and urban hipsters then there is kindling for a big fire. These populations do not share a common language or views on other issues, but all it is going to take is some new event to spark are fire. The right scandal (corruption or financial) or sudden economic down turn (think of the blow back from a European banking melt down) could do it. It just need to to resonate with peoples unspoken anger. Someone new will emerge speaking a vocabulary with a new narrow message of economic justice and people will listen and respond. I predict this summer is going to be long and hot.
I don't see that change led by the tea party or OWS, but from some new source. My personal guess is that leader will come from the left as the right currently tends to beat down any of their own who stray from orthodoxy for more than they do their opposition. If that leadership comes from existing politicians likely examples would be for senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren to team-up. They both are real experts on finance and government and are willing to speak-out the problems ahead of other politicians.

Re:Tea Party and OWS Synthesis by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 18:23 · Score: 1

The Koche brothers' father was Fred Koche, the founder of the John Birch Society
Liar.
The John Birch Society was founded by Robert Welch. See wikipedia.

The Birch Society was effectively the political arm of the KKK
Another lie.
I know that it's a common belief among leftists that anything conservative is racist, but it's nothing but libel.
"economic justice" is a nonsense phrase. Justice applies only to individuals and a person either gets justice or not. If I don't get justice, I cannot possibly get "economic justice". If I get justice, then I must get "economic justice." The adjectives pretending to create varieties of justice are attempts to distort and hide the concept of justice, and they are used by those whose oppose justice.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Another problem by Sycraft-fu · 2011-12-30 06:42 · Score: 1

Is that neither is as far divorced from the stereotypical left/right as they might pretend. On the surface, you'd think they have real similar goals. They are pissed at money fucking with politics, that is the real issue, forget the lesser stuff. However you quickly discover that no, they aren't willing to focus on that.

The best example I've seen is the gun issue and immigration issue. These are something that should be 100% divorced from either movement. If the problem is with our government being corrupted by money and that is the issue you are out to solve, other issues are secondary to that. The idea is you restore the government to be such that the voice of the citizens matter. Then such a government would, by definition, implement the laws the citizens supported.

However in both cases you find that the group went on about these issues. OWS has had some demand proposals (which they are always quick to point out aren't official, they have no official demands which is rather funny for a protest group) and sure enough they include things like "completely open borders" and " ban private gun ownership". It is just typical far left stuff under the banner of "the 99%". I don't even have to go on about all the examples of the Tea Party's racism and immigrant hate, or gun love. Typical far right stuff under the banner of too much government/taxes.

Hence whey they don't meet in the middle and agree. While superficially they are both claiming the same thing, really both are saying "Government isn't extreme enough in implementing the policies I want!" and what they want is opposite of each other. Neither group has been at all focused on the issue of getting money out of politics, or indeed any sort of party-neutral issue.

Re:Another problem by Jubedgy · 2011-12-30 10:47 · Score: 1

"I don't even have to go on about all the examples of the Tea Party's racism and immigrant hate, or gun love."
Yes, yes you do. Please provide concrete video, audio, or pictoral evidence of Tea Party racism. I've only heard circular arguments of 'the tea party is racist because the media says it's racist because people have told them it's racist (because they heard on the news it's racist).' The typical "proof" is the shouting of racial epithets and the spitting on of a member of the CBC, but many (many) videos have shown that no racial epithets were shouted, the spitting was accidental from some guy yelling (you can clearly see this in the videos), not him spitting a loogey.
Hell, you could make some $$$, as far as I know, Andrew Breitbart is still offering $10k for verifiable proof of racism at Tea Party rallies.
And before you go all 'but the tea parties are all made up of whites!'...OWS has disproportionate racial representation of white protesters, the tea party rallies tend to be equal to the overall racial makeup of the general population. Again, look at the videos.
So please, provide some physical evidence for your assertion.

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes

Yeah.... by SimplyGeek · 2011-12-30 06:55 · Score: 1

Yeah... let me know how that works out...

So Naive by mathmathrevolution · 2011-12-30 06:55 · Score: 1

There can never be "an honest-to-god movement to stop the corporations *and* the unions". The only way people have ever managed to successfully oppose corporate power is by collective action, ie: unions. The labor movement is how working people finally got a fair shake in this country and gave us things like basic safety standards and the weekend. Your own beloved Teddy Roosevelt supported the United Mine Workers by giving struggling miners fair pay.

Aside, this portrayal of Obama as a "union man" is laughable. The only reason conservatives think about Obama is a "union man" is because they hate unions and because they need to make Obama into a conservative boogeyman. It certainly isn't because Obama has done anything for union workers.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's all those occupunks really want. Let the hypocrisy fests begin!

I hear ya....I keep thinking, hey couldn't all this time doing facebook pages and tweets...be better spent trying to get a fscking job...or create your own business??

Don't get me wrong..there injustices in the world, and it is good to protest, but most of what I saw after about day x3 of the Occupy thing...was people bitching about "Banks got a bailout..where is MY bailout"? And shit like that. The protest message I got more and more was that it was a bunch of kids there with expensive macbooks and iphones with a sense of entitlement bitching about not having life handed to them on a silver plate.

I'm sorry, but in real life for 99% of us...we don't get the easy way in, we have to work for what we want...not everyone gets a fucking trophy for just participating, and no one gives a shit about your self esteem.

Sadly, we've raised a couple of generations of kids that have been raised this way...and now they're seeing that the real world just ain't that way. In the real world, people throw the dodgeball at you and try to knock your retainer out of your face...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:13 · Score: 1

proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact),

Err...you got me on this one.

Are you confusing Liberals/Progressives with Libertarians??

Those are polar opposites.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.

Making them more efficient, is not a bad thing.

But having the Federal Govt. overstep their enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to mandate what types private companies can make and sell is tyrannical.

If someone can make more efficient light bulbs, market them and find a market for them...fine. But it isn't the governments job to make their market for them at the expense of others.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:20 · Score: 1

choose whether or not to smoke - around people who don't want to breathe your second hand smoke

If it is a public building...one that people HAVE to go to, ie. state or federal buildings, I agree.

However, for private establishments...a bar or restaurant, then no I disagree. NO ONE forces anyone to patronize or work at a bar or restaurant which allows smoking. That is choice.

If a proprietor wishes to cater to only non-smoking people, then he will open a place and establish those rules.

This should not be something enforced by penalty of the law by the local/state/federal govt..

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Rock and Roll Lifestyle! by HornWumpus · 2011-12-30 07:27 · Score: 1

You can have _earned_ any amount and still not be toxic to your cause.

But if it's your parents income tax bracket that has supported you, you should shut the fuck up until you actually know something (this is a general statement, not only about OWS). These children should know they are radioactive little snots. The least they should do is put on their suits and ties, leave the drugs at home and try to be less attention whorish then usual.

Let the 'old' folks do most of the talking. It's not like theirs any shortage of old hippies these days.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Rock and Roll Lifestyle! by dyingtolive · 2011-12-30 11:57 · Score: 1

That's completely fair. I've never seen anything indicating that anyone involved in OWS indeed does live on their parent's income. The funny thing is that back when I was younger and did live off my parents income tax bracket, I'd have probably actually been hating on OWS myself, if they existed back then. As I said elsewhere here, I was kind of a Randroid. It wasn't until I got older, got myself a big boy job, and then watched my income increase a half a percent each year while my medical insurance and inflation outpaced it mutiple times over, and even still realized that the company's CEO was getting mutli-million dollar bonuses while leading the company through yearly losses, that I started to get bitter about such things. I actually get paid really well... for now. If trends continue, I have to start job hopping, with the hopes that there's a pay bump each time, just to keep myself at the qualtiy of life I was at years before.

Nice Cake reference by the way.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:Rock and Roll Lifestyle! by argStyopa · 2012-01-02 07:32 · Score: 1

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/
Average home value of the arrested OWS protestors in NY was $305k, 10% were north of $500k. Median monthly rent was $1850.
I'd say this data (which could be a lie, could be cherry picked, and is obviously host to all the source-validation issues that my original tinfoil hat post commented on) suggest that they are simply whiny rich kids looking for a cause to wave some trendy signs about.

--
-Styopa

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:34 · Score: 2

The reason rich people don't want equity in society is because they want to keep all of their stuff. That's it. There's no shining moral justification for it: they want their third and fourth vacation homes, their exotic luxury cars, their private jets and million dollar birthday parties, and you and your whole community can burn in hell for all they care.

Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatever actions they (legally) took to aquire such wealth and possessions?

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt? And what does morality have to do with whatever a person attains as long as it is acquired in a legal manner?

I can't afford 2x new Porsche Turbos...but I have no problem with someone that can and does. Heck, if I do things right and am a bit lucky...I KNOW I can someday own two of them too.

These are the ideas that our nation was founded on: you are no better than me, nor is the King, nor is the Pope, nor is the Banker. We play by the same rules, because all men are created equal, and we deserve equal treatment in front of the Law.

I agree 100%. We are all equal under the law, and should be. However, this is not mutually exclusive of someone doing better than someone else and attaining wealth.

The US was built on giving everyone equal opportunity and freedom to go out and try to succeed. It isn't about equal outcomes however. If you are free to succeed, you are also free to fuck up, fail and even die in a Darwin Awards type fashion by your own actions.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 07:37 · Score: 1

"liberals" in turn seems to be equated with communists...at least by some people in the States...
here in Europe a "liberal" pretty much means the opposite of communist.

Well...being that Slashdot is a US centric forum, it can always be assumed that we're using the US definition of "liberal".

We don't care what the European version is...that is your governance and none of our business really.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

don't worry by xuvetyn · 2011-12-30 07:38 · Score: 1

those idiots couldn't make a Hello World page.

--
alive to the universe, dead to the world

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by deanklear · 2011-12-30 07:49 · Score: 2

Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatever actions they (legally) took to aquire such wealth and possessions?

Bill Gates without taxpayer infrastructure would be just a guy named Bill Gates. Same goes for every rich person in the United States; that's why Africa doesn't have anything like the Silicon Valley. While I agree that people have a right to earn money, it's limited, just like every other right we have.

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt? And what does morality have to do with whatever a person attains as long as it is acquired in a legal manner?

You almost had it... it's you and me through the federal government. That's how democratic governments work.

Morality has everything to do with it. If we, as a society, let children wallow in poverty while a tiny percentage of our population makes millions of dollars per day, we're making a moral choice: feed, clothe, and educate children, or let one person have an amazing set of priceless art in his fourth vacation home. Those are choices, and choices always have moral consequences.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Burning1 · 2011-12-30 07:52 · Score: 1

As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.

We did chose. We decided that we didn't want to have people smoking in our face, didn't want to bear the burden of increased medical costs, nor bear the burden of brown-outs or spikes in energy prices.

You'll find that a number of the occupy protesters dream of a librarianship paradise where all power structures are torn down, and the individual is truly free to make their own way... You know, rather than the fantasy Libritarian paradise where governmental power is handed to corporations in the hope that it will make us more free (hint: if you can't make your way in our current system, you certainly won't be able to with less regulation.)

There are good reasons for having a minimum wage, and mandating more energy efficient light-bulbs and shower heads, but ignoring that... If you don't like those things, why don't you get involved with the party and try to improve it rather than placing a vote for the party that's actively selling out your rights and killing the american dream?

Market solutions are brutal, and there is good reason to make policy at the governmental level rather than to be forced to inact the same changes on an individual basis when we face tripple the utility prices.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by sydbarrett74 · 2011-12-30 08:06 · Score: 1

GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.

If you consider Dubya to be Progressive, you are woefully misguided. He is a poster-child for the neocon movement. I'd hate to think what you consider right-wing to be.

--
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by jschottm · 2011-12-30 08:17 · Score: 2

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist.

Ahem.

The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by bloodhawk · 2011-12-30 08:31 · Score: 1

Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatever actions they (legally) took to aquire such wealth and possessions?

Bill Gates without taxpayer infrastructure would be just a guy named Bill Gates. Same goes for every rich person in the United States; that's why Africa doesn't have anything like the Silicon Valley. While I agree that people have a right to earn money, it's limited, just like every other right we have.

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt? And what does morality have to do with whatever a person attains as long as it is acquired in a legal manner?

You almost had it... it's you and me through the federal government. That's how democratic governments work.

Morality has everything to do with it. If we, as a society, let children wallow in poverty while a tiny percentage of our population makes millions of dollars per day, we're making a moral choice: feed, clothe, and educate children, or let one person have an amazing set of priceless art in his fourth vacation home. Those are choices, and choices always have moral consequences.

Firstly africa does his it's equivalent silicon valley, google it. Bill Gates had a rich family, but like many others that became mega rich he worked his arse off, whether you like him or hate him he certainly worked for it. You seem to want a communist state, I suggest you move to a communist country which determines how much an individual can have. where the fuck did these kiddies come from that have this moronic sense of entitlement, get out and fucking earn it. Incidently Bill Gates does more to help poverty stricken children in a single day then you will in your entire life.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Algae_94 · 2011-12-30 08:56 · Score: 1

You continue to not define any of these terms properly.

Socialist is as Socialist does

This tells me nothing about socialism. Ducks do what ducks do, and trees do what trees do, but if you didn't know what a duck or tree was, those statements would not help explain that to you at all. You finally attempt to define socialism by giving one example that you say fits the definition.

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist

That's great, now I know that nations that do that are socialist. That will really help identify those socialist states.

Here is the definition from merriam-webster.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Which one of these does having to buy health insurance fall under again?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by pnuema · 2011-12-30 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job. Not only can they not find a job, the government is doing nothing to help them. The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed. It is not that they want a "bailout" - what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Algae_94 · 2011-12-30 09:11 · Score: 1

What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.

You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good. That's great that you actually want to be able to choose less efficient light bulbs and waste your money, but everyone else has decided that we need to have more energy efficient bulbs.

You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument. Tell us some positive benefits of the old bulbs over the new ones.

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by deanklear · 2011-12-30 09:14 · Score: 1

Bill Gates had a rich family, but like many others that became mega rich he worked his arse off, whether you like him or hate him he certainly worked for it.

Had he not attended an exclusive prep school with a Teletype Model 33, and been given free access to computers because of the school he was attending, it's doubtful you'd know his name. So who is to say there weren't dozens of people in Seattle who could have seen the same success?

You seem to want a communist state, I suggest you move to a communist country which determines how much an individual can have.

I don't believe in utopianism, so communism is out. Even so you have a pretty shallow view of it; perhaps you are thinking of totalitarian dictatorships?

where the fuck did these kiddies come from that have this moronic sense of entitlement, get out and fucking earn it.

Without my grandfather's service during WWII and the tax dollars contributed to our societal infrastructure from my (and your) ancestors going back generations, you'd spend most of your day looking for food and fuel and water. You're welcome.

Incidently Bill Gates does more to help poverty stricken children in a single day then you will in your entire life.

How many African children have died because they didn't have:

1) a stable government providing security and
2) a way to collect taxes and provide equitable infrastructure?

Probably 10 million people have been murdered in the DRC over resources in the last ten years, precisely because there's no one ensuring an equitable distribution of their natural resources. Don't confuse entitlement with civilization.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 09:14 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job.

You know..if they really had a coherent message, and all of them were chanting this...with signs, etc...and stating that on all interviews, then it would have been worthwhile IMHO.

However, I really saw NONE of this message coming from 99% of those doing the OWS campouts.

If this was the message from the movement, it sure got drowned out by what I listed above as what I gleaned from their protests.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

more jobs need to drop need BS, PHD just to get a by Joe_Dragon · 2011-12-30 09:17 · Score: 1

more jobs need to drop need BS, PHD just to get a job and for IT jobs this real bad a 4 Year CS does not help you on the help desk / desktop support/ system admin. No tech school does and a learn on the job apprenticeship.

plumbers don't need a 4 BS to get a job.

You don't need a 4 year EE to be come a electrician. A EE is about the design part and the trade part is about doing the real work now some kind of mixed EE / apprenticeship will be good but not at 4 years + apprenticeship after that.

IT is that way with CS based on the higher level stuff and you have IT work and computer programming that do have quite bit of gap form each other. There are lot's people with CS BA that do not know basic IT stuff or computer programmings with a CS that don't have the needed programming skills that a Tech school will give them.

Also IT moves to fast to be covered by a traditional college system.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2011-12-30 09:17 · Score: 1

How about if I open a garbage dump, specializing in dealing with feces, right next to your bar, and the sight and smell chase away all your customers? Hey, you can't tell me I can't open a garbage dump next to you. If you don't like it, you move.

Different thing entirely, these are zoning laws...you know, commercial, residential, waste...etc. Different scale, and not really applicable to my point.

You as an individual have a choice to make whether you want to drink at or work in a bar that allows smoking. C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by swinferno · 2011-12-30 09:55 · Score: 1

That's fine, but he uses the term "liberalism" in his sig, which does in fact have the same meaning in the US as it does in Europe
I merely pointed out where I thought his misconception came from, namely that what you call "liberals" have little to do with the "Liberalism" he mentions in his sig

--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

A better idea by Gravis+Zero · 2011-12-30 09:59 · Score: 1

Occupy Farmville

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by rohan972 · 2011-12-30 10:28 · Score: 1

Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.

An interesting point, yet the government has not changed the efficiency of a single light bulb.

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 10:29 · Score: 1

Why don't you go read transcripts of his actual writings instead of what you read on transcripts of Glenn Becks show.

Here start with this one: http://www.wmich.edu/library/archives/mlk/transcription.html

It's called: "Social Justice and the Emerging New Age"

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 10:31 · Score: 1

My favorite line from that speech: 'I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice."

So much for the revisionist Glenn Beck University history.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by rohan972 · 2011-12-30 10:40 · Score: 1

Seems absurd, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by rohan972 · 2011-12-30 10:47 · Score: 1

The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.

So until private ownership is completely abolished nothing can be called socialist. Thus we can not oppose socialism until we are completely and irreversibly subjugated by it. Insidious but clever.

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by rohan972 · 2011-12-30 11:22 · Score: 1

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt?

For some people, they work it out like this: The most anyone should be allowed to have is a little bit more than what I have (or think I might be able to get in the future). I am excellent and industrious, my wealth has been morally gained. It would be impossible to be much better than me, so people who gain much more than me are gaming the system or stealing it somehow. People who have much less than me are either lazy, or it wasn't their fault and the people with more than me have an obligation to take care of them.

My eyes were opened to this thinking when I heard a multimillionaire relative (who had worked hard but had received a substantial kick-start via inheritance) criticizing the greed of billionaires.

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Toonol · 2011-12-30 11:38 · Score: 1

That's a trifling detail. If the government controls the means of production, it's irrelevant who claims to 'own' it. Socialism is the centralized control of the economy, not the ownership of the economy.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Toonol · 2011-12-30 11:39 · Score: 1

The definition of tyranny is not "the removal of choice".

That sounds like an ideal definition of tyranny.

Sone, the Freenet plugin by Lazy+Jones · 2011-12-30 11:45 · Score: 1

Why don't they improve Sone, the Freenet social network plugin? It already supports "web of trust" principles and could help drag Freenet out of the "for illegal stuff only" quicksand it seems to have been stuck in for the past couple of years... Freenet is by design resistant to censorship and denial-of-service attacks and can only get better if more people use it actively.

--
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by jschottm · 2011-12-30 12:21 · Score: 1

Nope. The people can control a specific industry. For example, it would not be completely inaccurate to describe the British Health Service as socialized medicine. However, if the forced transfer of the people's money to private institutions and their shareholders is about as close to the opposite of socialization as you can get.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by jschottm · 2011-12-30 12:23 · Score: 1

Socialism is the centralized control of the economy, not the ownership of the economy.

Care to back that up with any kind of citation?

You mean like Gary Johnson? by SteveFoerster · 2011-12-30 12:34 · Score: 1

Well, if you mean it about a third option, Gary Johnson was pretty good as governor of New Mexico for eight years, and now he's running for president as a Libertarian. He's probably the best candidate they've ever had.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by daath93 · 2011-12-30 12:38 · Score: 1

Lookup libertarian socialism on fucking google and get back to me.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-30 13:12 · Score: 1

To me it sounds like an oversimplified definition for tyranny, especially in the context of light bulb efficiency standards... I made the mistake of thinking this site was still "news for nerds", not "news for adults that dropped out of high school."

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 15:42 · Score: 1

It's not an important distinction. There are myriad bad political ideas, and spending time defeating the minutia of each bad idea is a waste of time. Once a particular form of tyranny is defeated, if all you've done is to wipe out those particular ideas, some other form of tyranny is going to pop up.

General proper ideas must be formulated into law, laws that make all forms of tyranny illegal. People need to be taught proper ideas, not the just the flaws of the current forms of villainy.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 15:51 · Score: 1

Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured

There are several false assumptions in your statement. You assume that all uninsured people don't pay for emergency medical services. You assume there's no such thing as charity. You assume that there is no way to contract in advance for emergency medical services. You assume that there's no legal mechanism available for seizing payment from someone who refuses to pay for emergency medical services. And that's just one sentence, the implication of your second sentence is no better.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-30 18:00 · Score: 1

If I'm jailed for buying or selling incandescent lamps, that's tyranny. "Removal of choice" sounds trivial until you realize what's required to enforce it.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-30 18:34 · Score: 1

C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?

But...but...how do you expect him to win the argument if he has to play it all fair and even....and...and stuff? Smoking baaaad! (yes, we know...so is excessive masturbation to internet porn, but I don't think you'll get any traction with the /. crowd on banning that one!).

Good stuff, cayenne8!

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

NEED A counter culture DNS - more important? by m1bxd · 2011-12-30 20:43 · Score: 1

We have identi.ca Oxwall Druapal etc etc we NEED A counter culture DNS - telehash finished for the masses?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-31 01:06 · Score: 1

What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.

You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good.

Yeah, because banning deadly poisons and birth-defect-causing ingredients from the food supply is totally like preventing a child from having the bulb replaced in her Easy-Bake Oven or preventing consumers from replacing the bulbs in CFL-uncompatible lamps, lighting fixtures, and even some electrical/electronic test equipment they own and paid good money for.

I use a simple in-house-built incandescent light bulb AC power current limiter on my electronics repair bench for use as a low-cost "safe startup tool" due to an incandescent lamp's inherent electrical behavior, so as to safely start up AC-powered electronic equipment in for work. Replacing it with an equivalent alternative that is much, much more costly means I must charge more for repairs to recover the cost.

You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument.

Yes, yes it is. When it comes to things like what light bulbs I decide to use when I pay for both the bulbs and the electric bill, what toilet and shower head I use when I pay for those items and the water bill, "because I want to" is all the reason I need and the only argument that counts in a free society.

It seems your problem isn't with light bulbs or high-flow toilets and shower heads, it's with a free society and individual freedom of choice. You're going to have a hard time selling those ideas in a country like America that was founded around the idea and principle of a free society and individual freedom of choice.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-12-31 05:16 · Score: 1

If it's a 'smart' issue then it doesn't need to be made mandatory through legislation.

Or aren't you smart enough to have noticed that is the issue, not the existence in the marketplace of choices?

Liberals don't think the public is 'smart' enough to make the choice to switch. So they force the switch with legislation.

Fuck that.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-12-31 05:23 · Score: 1

We can probably agree that GWB wasn't a member of the Progressive Labour Party. He didn't get the rubberstamp endorsement from any of the people currently championing the 'Progressive' brand.

But if you study the classical meaning of the term 'Progressive' back in the early 20th Century, dubya fits in to a degree.

But I agree, in the modern meaning of 'Progressive' which is anybody who would eagerly perform cunnilinguis on Nancy Pelosi*, GWB is not a 'progressive'.

(*while she spit on him and her husband kicked him in the balls and the pair continued to rake in profits from their Crony Capitalist business practices)

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Beelzebud · 2011-12-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Yep mod it down. It's easier to just hide the truth, than refute it.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by lonecrow · 2011-12-31 06:37 · Score: 1

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

Not sure that I would agree with you on this. The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.

What you got instead was some sort of weird hybrid designed to let private insurance companies stay in a game that should have been 100% public.

If you think about it for even a minute you can see that a public insurance body should be the most natural thing in the world. Insurance is about spreading the risk with premium level set by the math of the actuarial tables. So the more people in the pool the lower the premiums.

If it were a public body it could be designed to break even, or at the very least run it as a regulated monopoly with a set profit level like a utility.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2011-12-31 11:59 · Score: 1

The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.

I can understand why someone might hold that view. However, you need to take into account the nature of government-run...well...practically anything to do with providing services to the population. Just look at the USPS or AMTRAK for quick examples. Public services rarely ever break even or serve their customers as well as a private-sector business can. Being government-run also tends to stifle innovation and thinking "outside the box".

One thing that would immensely improve the current system is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would bring competition that would encourage the best-quality services at the lowest rates.

One of the bigger problems I see is the very nature of government bureaucracies and the consequences of their effects when applied to healthcare. Without competition as a motivator there is little incentive for making healthcare services better/faster/cheaper or improve how people are treated when there are no alternatives if they aren't treated well. Also, that being a government-run and taxpayer paid-for service would necessarily mean that bureaucrats would determine how much money may be spent on each patient and for which and how much services, forcing a "one-size-fits-all" model on a field that is so individual in nature in the needs of those served.

And that's just scratching the surface. There are far more problems in addition those I can list here in a Slashdot post.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by lonecrow · 2011-12-31 12:52 · Score: 1

I am not as familiar with the US but here in Canada I have worked in the Canadian civil service both as an employee and a contractor as well as availing myself of various government services as a citizen. What I can tell you is that in my experience they are professional run and have no more issues or inefficiencies than any large private organization private.

Also the customer service I receive from pretty much every level of government far exceeds anything I get from say my cell phone company or a big box retailer.

You may find that the US civil service does not met your exceptions but it would be a mistake to apply that as a rule across the rest of the modern world.

There are more motivators then just profit and in some sectors of society profit is the exactly the wrong kind of motivator. Prisons come to mind to me. A private prison can increase profits by either increasing the incarceration rate, or by lower services to prisons (drug treatment, and other rehabilitation services). Neither of those would serve the public good so private prisons are an extremely terrible idea as I am sure you in the USA are learning.

Personally I put health insurance in the same basket. It works better as a single public body.

We don't have government doctors what we have is a government insurance company. The actuarial information is basically open to all so its possible to see why the premiums are set the way they are. I have never heard of anyone complaining that a procedure was not covered (except a sex change operation, but I think most of those are still covered). If it wasn't for US TV we would know the meaning of the word "pre-existing condition". When I go to the doctor they proscribe whatever drugs or treatments are best and I do them. I hit my head in a hockey game one morning so I went to a doctor in the afternoon and they sent me for an MRI the next morning. After the MRI I walked across the street and see the specialist who reviewed the results with me. No fuss no muss and no waiting lists. Anyone telling you about a "health care crisis" in Canada is out to lunch and has an agenda against your better interest.

Innovation? Our single public insurance system funds all sorts of preventative measures like encouraging (not coercing) healthy lifestyles and seeking early treatment.

Exactly what kind of "innovation" does a private health insurance company in the US provide? New ways to screw you out of the treatment you need?

For profit companies are simply not the best tool for all occasions. Not for profits societies, regulated monopolies and government run agencies all have their roles to play. To me health insurance is a natural fit for government.

This idea that anything the government does the private sector can do better is an absolute lie.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by cayenne8 · 2012-01-01 04:29 · Score: 1

Misinterpretation of the commerce clause has been largely the basis of the many problems we have with the feds overstepping their bounds.

That was only meant to keep states from using taxation and other means to disallow commerce coming from another state in favor of local products.

It wasn't meant for the feds to be enabled to stick their nose into all state business and that of private companies and manufacturers.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by cayenne8 · 2012-01-01 04:33 · Score: 1

How many African children have died because they didn't have:

Err....and african children are my problem how?

We're only talking about the US here.....where it is and SHOULD be ok to be wealthy if it is attained by legal means.

Africa is not my country, why do I give a damn about their own mismanagement of their economy and resources?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by EricScott · 2012-01-01 14:29 · Score: 1

I have no idea why your comment is only at 4. I should be at 11.

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by deanklear · 2012-01-02 04:31 · Score: 1

Africa is not my country, why do I give a damn about their own mismanagement of their economy and resources?

I was pointing out how strong governments with progressive taxation do very well versus all other forms of governments that I know if. If you have a counter example, please provide it.

(On another note, most people believe that caring about other human beings is central to being a good person. You seem to have a terrible lack of empathy for other people. You may want to ask yourself why that is.)

Re:Extraordinary ignorance. by cayenne8 · 2012-01-03 03:06 · Score: 1

(On another note, most people believe that caring about other human beings is central to being a good person. You seem to have a terrible lack of empathy for other people. You may want to ask yourself why that is.)

Pretty simple...I only have one life that I know of, and I'm the most important person in the world to me.

So, while I'm a giving person to my friends and family...and my country, it pretty much stops short of that...I want myself and my team to 'win'.

When it comes down between me and anyone else, well, I intend for me to win...no exceptions.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by Algae_94 · 2012-01-03 07:00 · Score: 1

First, incandescent light bulb are far from being banned and phased out. You will be able to buy them for a long time to come. Higher efficiency is all that's mandated. 100W bulbs will be replaced with higher efficiency, 72W incandescent bulbs.

Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.

Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.

Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it. Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please. This may be free, but not exactly much of a society. Words, like the ones in this thread are free, but actions have had consequences since the dawn of man. As there are more and more humans on this rock, using more and more natural resources, we need to watch how we live together.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei by BlueStrat · 2012-01-03 08:53 · Score: 1

Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it.

As Colonel Potter would say; "Horse cookies!".

Nobody said anything about another person's property. As far as "consume all of the Earth's resources", that's another load of horse cookies, sold to the gullible in order for those who desire wealth at others expense and power over others to obtain and keep it.

The Earth's resources will eventually run out. We can either take tiny bits until they are eventually exhausted and then allow civilization to collapse, never to rise again because of lack of resources, or we can take advantage of their current abundance and use them to achieve a sophisticated enough level of civilization & technology to allow humans to gather resources from off-planet, eventually moving nearly all harmful and destructive resource-gathering and manufacturing to off-planet.

It's akin to being trapped underwater in a malfunctioning submarine. We can either sit and try to breathe slowly and eventually die when the air runs out, or we can use the remaining air to swim to the surface.

You're welcome to make yourself a permanent guest at Davy Jone's Locker if you like, the rest of us are swimming to the surface.

Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.

Those failed ideological ideas have been sold to a loud, ignorant, violent, and selfish minority by corrupt politicians wishing to increase their own power and wealth while removing freedoms and wealth from the citizenry, but there's been an ideological sea-change in the US. Those politicians who advocate for such ideas are going to find themselves increasingly unemployed and/or prosecuted.

Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.

One of the measures of efficiency is the ability to compete favorably against existing technology in a free market. If the technology was efficient enough, it could compete without any government intervention as it would be a better deal and people would buy those instead of the old bulbs voluntarily. This idea is embodied in my sig below. If the ideas were so great, they wouldn't need to be mandatory.

Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please.

They can, right up until it infringes on another person's individual rights. That was the way it was in the US up until the Progressive movement took hold, after Liberalism was discredited and they changed their name to Progressive to avoid ostracism for their failed ideas and policies. History is once again repeating itself, as Progressivism has generally been discredited among the majority of people in the US. I guess it's time to make up a new name for the same old failed ideology.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Slashdot Mirror

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

323 of 451 comments (clear)