Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[rockfist]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money.

So you equate welfare and unemployment payments with national defense? So because it's the government's job to provide a military and pay those service members, I automatically support the redistribution of money to people who don't have jobs or think that they deserve taking money from the rich? Because that's the strawman you've apparently convinced yourself of.

I agree with NS on this one...and Sym are you saying that we should have an entirely volunteer (non-compensated) army? If so, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. National Defense and transfer payment programs are not at all the same.

[Phatscotty]

[HapSmo19]

That is the best shit..... ever

...if you don't count this....

[Phatscotty]

wtf is this?

I luv my sin????? Very nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFtiXykAw00

Here is a much more sensible guy who you could have told me was at a Tea Party and I would have believed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7rbw2cWyj4

[natty dread]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

[Nobunaga]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

... They are anti-capitalism (like a lot of loons here). Yet they seem to be happily participating in that which they despise.

... How did you miss that?

...

[MeDeFe]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

... They are anti-capitalism (like a lot of loons here). Yet they seem to be happily participating in that which they despise.

... How did you miss that?

...

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize capitalism?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

[Night Strike]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize capitalism?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

Most of the people there don't want to criticize capitalism, they want to destroy it (in their own words). That's WAY beyond criticism.

[PLAYER57832]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize capitalism?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

Most of the people there don't want to criticize capitalism, they want to destroy it (in their own words). That's WAY beyond criticism.

I see... and anyone crticizing the government is automatically a red pink communist? (seems like we have heard this one before...).

EXCEPT... aren't you among those criticizing the government?

[spurgistan]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

... They are anti-capitalism (like a lot of loons here). Yet they seem to be happily participating in that which they despise.

... How did you miss that?

...

Actually, they're not anti-capitalist. They're anti-Wall Street controlling everything. There's a difference, bro.

[Phatscotty]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

My argument? I posted a picture... with no comments.

[Phatscotty]

....the right of the people to assemble peacefully....

[natty dread]

My argument? I posted a picture... with no comments.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't make an argument either, I just posted some words.

[Night Strike]

My argument? I posted a picture... with no comments.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't make an argument either, I just posted some words.

That's every post you make.

[isaiah40]

This was posted by one of my Facebook friends:

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

So... your argument is that unless one lives in the middle of a forest, totally self-sustained, outside any modern society, one has no right to criticize corporations?

Does the same apply to governments? So if you've ever used a government service, you're not allowed to criticize the government?

How does that work out for you?

... They are anti-capitalism (like a lot of loons here). Yet they seem to be happily participating in that which they despise.

... How did you miss that?

...

Actually, they're not anti-capitalist. They're anti-Wall Street controlling everything. There's a difference, bro.

Consider those in the Occupy movement who bear signs saying "Down with Capitalism," or "Anti-Capitalism," or "You can never find a good left-wing military coup when you need one." I don't think they understand the implications of those stances. I'd wager that most of them don't even know what capitalism is. They just have this vague, ideologically defined term partially provided by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.

I'd wager that 99% of them don't understand economics, interest groups, and especially the close relationship between Wall Street and the government. They're predominantly composed of a bunch of ignorant yet angry people with no clear goal or strong leadership. A lot of them are hyper-charged ideological pawns.

[Timminz]

This was posted by one of my Facebook friends:

Click image to enlarge.

Well that sure shows who's got "the man" on their, now doesn't it.

[spurgistan]

I'd wager that 99% of them don't understand economics, interest groups, and especially the close relationship between Wall Street and the government. They're predominantly composed of a bunch of ignorant yet angry people with no clear goal or strong leadership. A lot of them are hyper-charged ideological pawns.

I'd wager that you are 99% wrong. I feel like you (and most of the haters) are viewing Occupy through a narrow partisan lens, and so pretty much see what you expect to see.
Also, don't understand the close relationship between wall street and the government?? That is precisely the one thing you will hear anybody there say. So, yeah. YA WRONG.
Why does a protest movement need strong leadership?
Keep fighting for that 1%, folks. They love it, though they don't really need the help.

Also, Isiah, how many peaceful people got maced by dickhead cops at Tea Party rallies?

[Army of GOD]

They, like the Tea Party, are a bunch of whiny cunts. I love seeing the "forgive student debt" line. As a 20 year old who is already 15k in the hole because of college (and made the choice not to go to NYU because of the ridiculous debt I'd be in), they made the decision, they need to pay.

Anyway, the Tea Party is a bunch of gun-toting rednecks. Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of tree-hugging hipster douchebags.

f*ck the world we live in is so annoying.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd wager that 99% of them don't understand economics, interest groups, and especially the close relationship between Wall Street and the government. They're predominantly composed of a bunch of ignorant yet angry people with no clear goal or strong leadership. A lot of them are hyper-charged ideological pawns.

I'd wager that you are 99% wrong. I feel like you (and most of the haters) are viewing Occupy through a narrow partisan lens, and so pretty much see what you expect to see.
Also, don't understand the close relationship between wall street and the government?? That is precisely the one thing you will hear anybody there say. So, yeah. YA WRONG.
Why does a protest movement need strong leadership?
Keep fighting for that 1%, folks. They love it, though they don't really need the help.

What's partisan about my view? I'm presuming this based on articles about them from people who interviewed them, who analyze the media's general message, and from direct interviews. I'm exaggerating about that 99%, but the majority of them are ignorant about economics, capitalism, the government, and interest groups.

I'm right about them being frustrated and leaderless. They're decentralized because they're composed of many different people from many different backgrounds (and with low opportunity costs). But most of them don't understand the implications of their stances.

[rockfist]

Walking around being partisan about everything is no way to live.

I happen to believe large corporations are too damn big and have too damn much influence on everything (as do unions). I think we'd be better if some of the largest corporations and unions were broken up. When corporations get "too big to fail" that is when we have stupid ass buyouts that cost us all billions.

We have corporate executives that get huge rewards when the corporation makes billions, and more modest (yet still astronomically huge by most people's standards) rewards when the corporation loses its ass. This encourages taking stupid risks. This is especially true for investment banks. One solution (which worked for hundreds of years) was to require them to be partnerships, not corporations. In a partnership, if the business loses its ass and can't pay the creditors come after you and your partners personal stuff. This encourages cautious risk taking and careful vetting of partners.

I'm not against people making huge piles of money as long as they have their own ass at risk. I am against taking it from them, through threat of force.

That being said, I almost always vote Republican because I believe that people should do on their own, not rely on the government to do for them. I believe that the only valid reasons the federal government should exist or be able to levy taxes is to provide for a national defense, a Uniform Commercial Code to regulate commerce, and for transportation systems. It is wrong for the federal government to take property from one citizen and distribute it to another except in the support of those things.

So while I sympathize with some of the things the occupy people are for/against, I do think there is a heavy degree of Marxist influence there and I find Marxism to be a crushing system of oppression; the world would be far better off if people with Marxist ideals had never existed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Rockfist, it's still a shite choice to vote Republican too. Both parties continue the corporate state, and both perpetuate the National Security state. There's just seems to be no end to this.

I'm not on the verge of joining the Occupiers because they have no idea what they're doing. Much of their ideology is 8 steps backwards into further government authority including the higher social costs of unintended consequences which are bound to follow.

Give this country another strong recession plus an exogenous military attack (i.e. China via proxy wars), and we'll be living in that national security state in no time. The future is bleak, and the gap between choices will become wider.

[GreecePwns]

Allow me to attempt to characterize the movement in a somewhat neutral way. As I see it, there are three main factions in this group.

1. The originals: Those who are there simply to protest the influence of money on our government and crony capitalism in general.

2. The followers: Those who joined up later on to protest general left-wing causes or libertarian (predominantly end the fed) causes.

3. The unions and other big money co-opters: Those who joined up to take on the followers' causes, not the originals' cause (except the libertarian ones).

This is why no one sees a coherent stance out of the Occupy Wall Street movement. This is different from the Tea Party's faction number 1, because they had broad demands of "less taxes, less spending, less government" which by and large, their 2nd and 3rd factions were pushing for similar demands(except for those who were pushing social conservative causes as well). In this case, factions 2 and 3 are articulating very different demands from faction 1.

So what is the cause put forward by the founders of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Its to reduce the power of money in Washington, and crony capitalism in general.

[GreecePwns]

And that whole photo showing people using corporate tools to fight corporations, those who use any government services at all are in no position to protest against government, if we are to assume that logic is correct.

[BigBallinStalin]

And that whole photo showing people using corporate tools to fight corporations, those who use any government services at all are in no position to protest against government, if we are to assume that logic is correct.

For sure. I'm in agreement with you, natty, and the other communists. (har har!). It's the Counter-Strike 1.5 of arguments.