OWS. (in Debates)


AdminTal Destra [G6] October 14 2011 3:49 PM EDT

Occupy Wall Street... what's the point again?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 14 2011 3:54 PM EDT

Bring attention to income inequality and influence public policy regarding laws and regulations regarding such matters, and fire first salvo at banks who are sitting on gobs of money and refuse to lend, even after receiving significant sums of money from the government.

Lord Bob October 14 2011 4:07 PM EDT

Occupy Wall Street... what's the point again?
Read the other threads here, and seek out information on non-right-wing sites.

IPoop October 14 2011 4:29 PM EDT

it sounds better than 'occupy 7th street?'

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 7:29 PM EDT


A 00.0000005% are standing up to the 1% for The Other 99%.

In the event you missed Nov's post: http://i.imgur.com/kamRX.jpg .

I also like this one, but I can't find the original: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

QBRanger October 15 2011 11:51 AM EDT

The better alternative.

http://the53.tumblr.com/

Lochnivar October 15 2011 12:04 PM EDT

For some reason I am thinking of the term 'false dichotomy'...

Not sure why.

Lord Bob October 15 2011 12:10 PM EDT

Bast's was better than Ranger's.

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] October 15 2011 2:25 PM EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/15/us-italy-demonstrations-violence-idUSTRE79E1ZR20111015

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 15 2011 3:44 PM EDT

If you can get a 70k a year job in IT, then congrats to you.

IT and healthcare are some of the safest industries to work in right now, as they will always be needed, everywhere. So, it's no surprise working in one of those industries has given these people this false sense of "abundance" of work available. If there were as many jobs in healthcare and IT available in other industries, we wouldn't have any poor people, anywhere in this country.

So, Ranger, you and I can sit back and watch all this OWS business comfortable in the knowledge that it won't affect us. You can even mock them, and poke fun at their disenfranchisement or even question their intelligence. Personally, I am sad to see so many of my fellow citizens angry and fighting for a smaller and smaller pot of money as corporations find ways to exploit our democracy to grow their bottom line. At least we have ours.

QBRanger October 15 2011 4:15 PM EDT

I made the decision to go into the medical field. I made the decision to go to state schools and have only 33k in loans. I made the decision to invest in metals and devest from stocks. I had no insider knowledge.

The rabble from OWS have a point to a degree. However defecating on police cars, refusing to let a public park be cleaned and fighting with police are not ways to get the majority of America behind your cause.

Decisions matter. Blaming others quite immature. Being a mob...punkish.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 15 2011 10:30 PM EDT

http://i.imgur.com/FlzVJ.jpg

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 15 2011 10:31 PM EDT

They didn't refuse to let it be cleaned, they found volunteers and cleaned it themselves, hell the request from the park owners to have the city help vacate the protesters has been rescinded!

DrkZeraga October 16 2011 4:04 AM EDT

http://flaglerlive.com/29548/99-percent-53-percent
Just wanted to point out this particular article.
I was quite moved after reading it and in case your accusing me of being liberal, I'm not an american and not from america. But seriously check out the article its quite well written ^^

QBJohnnywas October 16 2011 4:40 AM EDT

Here's the thing, I'm not talking about the US, but applies. I pay my way, I get taxed my fair share. I'm prepared to pay that, and I'm prepared for my money to go to helping people less well off than me, although I'm less prepared for it to go towards wars. And while that happens I hear about people earning hundreds of times more than I do avoiding paying their share. And those people, the people who find it is worth their while to avoid paying taxes demand power with their finances, demand to gain from how the country is run, mostly because if they exert influence they get what has been happening, tax cuts and tax breaks and business opportunities to make even more money.

If you're reluctant to pay your fair share in taxes, if in fact you are diverting your money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes because you think it is your money and should stay with you, then you do not have an equal right to have your say about how the country is run. If you don't want to help towards running the country, looking after people in that country who need help then you should probably leave, go and find some little island to take your money to and stay there. Never come back. Because people like you who want to avoid contribution towards the country you're as bad as the people who sit on their backsides and demand a living. No you're worse, because you think you're better than them. Just leave, take your tax dodging backsides out of my country. You don't belong here.


DrkZeraga October 16 2011 5:38 AM EDT

And just going on a tangent, I think that OWS turns out to be a highly successful movement IMHO.

I mean before I heard about the OWS from this forum, I didn't even know how bad the situation was in the US. It was quite the eyeopener finding out how large the income gap and national debt was.

So to answer the question, I think OWS is doing an excellent job of raising concern and awareness over the issues, with me being halfway across the globe in Singapore as proof of their success. I will definitely be following any further developments.

Sickone October 16 2011 5:49 AM EDT

Sickone October 16 2011 11:15 AM EDT

Lochnivar October 16 2011 11:16 AM EDT

Yeah, but Sickone, if you insist on providing context of course it will look bad...

Lord Bob October 16 2011 12:27 PM EDT

Ranger needs to read DrkZeraga's article.

QBRanger October 16 2011 4:37 PM EDT

I did. There are parts I agree and other that made me laugh. I would discuss it, however according to cb my intellect and ability to debate are in question so I will refrain from stating where that article fails logic.

That is all.

Lochnivar October 16 2011 4:54 PM EDT

There is a difference between 'fails logic' and 'says things you disagree with'.... since you decline to explain I don't know which is the case here.

It's kind of sad... the '99%' covers 52 out of the '53%' yet instead of focusing on common ground (of which there is a good deal) it is framed divisively. Kind of like your two party system really... most things that are good for one are good for both, but don't try telling them that.

Analogy of the day:
Although they may be 'opposites' both heads and tails have an interest in the well being of the coin.

Mikel October 16 2011 11:19 PM EDT

JW Novel Idea, everyone pays the same amount on their taxes.

Anyways, I pay my fair share and take everyone one of the deductions that I can.

BTW, I'm in the process of picking out my little island. Once I find a suitable one for my needs, I plan to move there and develop it, and deduct it all from my annual US taxes.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 17 2011 4:50 AM EDT

Here's the thing, I'm not talking about the US, but applies. I pay my way, I get taxed my fair share. Snip

Should I post that FTSE 100 link again? ;)

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 17 2011 6:29 PM EDT

Man this Occupy Wall Street thing has legs. Apparently it has spread around the world now: Occupy Wall Street Spreads Worldwide

Seattle


Brussels


Seoul


Puerto Rico


Etc. etc.

Lord Bob October 17 2011 7:24 PM EDT

I'm going to leave this right here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-sergea_n_1015902.html

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 18 2011 10:40 AM EDT

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/when-did-vendetta-masks-begin-to-be-used-by-protesters-.html

QBRanger October 18 2011 11:00 AM EDT

The key parts of this article. In the WSJ written by a Democratic pollster:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters togetherラregardless of age, socioeconomic status or educationラis a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirementラno matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 18 2011 11:39 AM EDT

64% believe health care is a right (people who claim to be conservative often hold very unconservative ideals)

I'm fairly certain the percentage is higher for the question about taxing the "ultra wealthy"...

I just don't put much stock in how people characterize themselves, hell many folks I know who consider themselves liberal are not only socially conservative, they're totalitarians when it comes to legislation of morality.

I think when it comes down to it, there is a hell of a lot of parity across the board with desire to see the coddling and favoritism displayed towards corporations by the government end. Undue amounts of influence based on money is nothing new, but we're smart enough today to do something about it.

Elect someone else, bottom line.

Lord Bob October 18 2011 1:44 PM EDT

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies.
This is a good thing.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse.
So? Neither was the tea party.

Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate
More representative than the Tea Party.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-17/wall-street-protesters-backed-3-to-1-by-new-yorkers-quinnipiac-poll-says.html

Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals,
I see nothing wrong with this.

and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
Compared with what percent of the Tea Party? I don't hear any occupiers talking about "second amendment remedies" here. Let's not forget, the Tea Party ran the hag responsible for that little phrase for the US Senate!

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed,
As am I. I still support the movement, and if I could afford to take the time off I'd be right down there in Lansing with them.

I won't comment on the rest, as it's just a rundown of liberal policies smeared with a right-wing bias. Sorry, but when the word "radical" comes up twice in the same article when describing the left, I tend to just roll my eyes in disgust.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] October 18 2011 2:21 PM EDT

Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.
That confused me. Unless this is taken from that sample. Doesn't seem relative to the 200 interviews, doesn't tell how big this new pie is, and no source to base on. Then I click the posted link. Immediately needed to find a V8 veggie drink can to smash against my head. The article starts and ends with attacking the dems. The OWS is the cream filling of this stinky twinkie.
Good crop job, Ranger. =/

Lord Bob October 18 2011 2:27 PM EDT

It's a Wall Street Journal article. Yet another Rupert Murdoch smear rag.

The last paragraph is particularly telling:
Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
In other words, "Democrats need to move to the right and agree with us Republicans."

Phrede October 19 2011 12:39 PM EDT

Nice to see Ranger back in debating mode/mood - maybe he will rejoin S and F also.

QBRanger October 19 2011 12:44 PM EDT

The article was written by a Democratic strategist.

QBRanger October 19 2011 12:55 PM EDT

That confused me. Unless this is taken from that sample. Doesn't seem relative to the 200 interviews, doesn't tell how big this new pie is, and no source to base on.

How reliable is gallup for you?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

Stats are a bitch huh? Especially when you cannot believe the truth. I bet that V8 can against your head hurts even more now that your are proven to be wrong. Kind of shows how sheltered you are only reading the Huffington Post, and the Nation. Watching only MSNBC and CBS/ABC.

That article was written by a well know Democratic strategist.

PS: Keith Olbermann is not mainstream in any universe.

Lochnivar October 19 2011 2:40 PM EDT

Stats are a bitch huh?

No, stats are interesting... always interesting, even the really bad/misleading ones because they teach us something too.

That gallup poll was actually quite an interesting and I don't see any reason to disagree with the numbers there...

Such as 59% of respondents don't identify themselves as conservative!
See what I did there? That's the same data you gave, but presentation is everything baby.

Let's face it, 77% don't call themselves liberals too! Both sides can win.


I believe the actual phrasing was this:
"How would you describe your political views -- very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal?"

Now the US is a somewhat conservative country (yes, it is) so it is natural to expect a leaning to that side of the spectrum... actually doesn't surprise me one bit. But here's the thing, saying "I'm conservative" doesn't mean you don't hold some left-wing ideals, it simply means that, on the whole, you identify more closely with being 'conservative'... whatever you interpret that to mean.

Those sorts of stats are kind of a red-herring in that article... we KNOW it is a left wing protest... hell the same numbers would make a survey of the Tea Party look just as unrepresentative (though less so, since the US is kinda uptight).

Did you know that the 1995 Million Man March was completely unrepresentative of the US populace? It was, like, 90% black dudes and the national surveys at the time identified less than 15% of the population as black. Heck, only about half of that 15% would be dudes... so you see, they should have been ignored too... all thanks to irrelevant stats.

The most interesting thing I took from that Gallup article was this:

"Longer term, the Gallup ideology trend, dating from 1992, documents increased political polarization in the country. The percentage of moderates has fallen to the mid-30s from the low 40s, while the combined percentage either liberal or conservative is now 62%, up from 53%."

The politics of division, it seems, are accomplishing one thing at least.


Lord Bob October 19 2011 3:13 PM EDT

Jon Stewart has once again ripped apart Republican hypocrisy on the mater of OWS vs. the Tea Party with expert precision:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/jon-stewart-gop-pitting-americans-against-americans_n_1019247.html

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] October 19 2011 6:25 PM EDT

1) The strategist should have linked that then. His article for the WSJ is under Opinion and was unspecific as to the nature of those numbers. Which makes my doubts of said "truth" correct when evidence is not given. Eat it with gravy. Here come the biscuits.
2) I don't read or watch any of those since I find all major news outlets to be subtle with bias. Think we can agree on that at least. Which means I can be skeptical of all news outside of local. Therefore I shelter myself from either side. More tea?
3) He sure as stats writes like a republican. He is also not well known, but I understand how you might think that thanks to the first line of wikipedia. _He is a political analyst for Fox News._ Went to read his article about collective bargaining there on WSJ. Leans right after sneezing numbers again. You can see what another fair article says about his Opinion on that same site. Here's your check.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/19/who-is-occupying-wall-street-a-pollster-surveys-protester/?KEYWORDS=DOUGLAS+SCHOEN

Was right to question and we liberals are all vindicated once again!*snorts*
Your transparent trollings have succeeded in educating me on who not to trust and earning my sympathy since you still can't think as objectively as a jealous lowbrow of the service industry such as myself. Now tip me rich man. :)

QBRanger October 19 2011 6:59 PM EDT

And this is the reason we cannot have a debate on CB. I show you the exact stats and somehow you try to twist the discussion into something that is not there.

Have fun in your own ignorance.

I will continue to drink my tea and stay away from fleas.

Lord Bob October 19 2011 7:12 PM EDT

And this is the reason we cannot have a debate on CB.
No Ranger,
I will continue to drink my tea and stay away from fleas.
THIS is the reason we cannot have a debate on CB.

Lochnivar October 19 2011 7:14 PM EDT

And this is the reason we cannot have a debate on CB. I show you the exact stats and somehow you try to twist the discussion into something that is not there.


Not sure who that was directed at... if it was me, well I used your stats soo...


If it was Gun, well, the article he linked was addressed directly at the one you linked.
Sure there may be some (mutual) hostility between you two in phrasing, but the data being debated is fairly close to staying on point (or at least relevant).

I fail to see what, in this instance, has suggested 'we can't have debates in CB'.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 19 2011 7:24 PM EDT

I fail to see what, in this instance, has suggested 'we can't have debates in CB'.

Might it suggest that here on CB, as in politics, that facts are not as self-evident as we would all like to think they are? Maybe Ranger looks at it and sees what he wants to see, and Bob looks at it and sees what he wants to see in it. What it tells me is that polling isn't always the most scientific thing, and that the results aren't always conclusive.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 19 2011 7:24 PM EDT


Darrell Huff is spinning in his grave.

Lochnivar October 19 2011 7:34 PM EDT

Darrell Huff is spinning in his grave.

A recent poll has actually refuted this...

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 19 2011 7:49 PM EDT


What percentage of those polled understood the questions?

Lochnivar October 19 2011 8:37 PM EDT

What percentage of those polled understood the questions?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking...

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 19 2011 8:45 PM EDT

Loch is full of zingers tonight ;)
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003EoZ">OWS.</a>