I'm impressed that after 14 pages and 280 replies, this thread is still on the same topic. Nobody has gone off on a tangent trying to figure out if you can cry underwater or why Goofy gets to live in the house, but Pluto has to stay outside in the doghouse.

Lots of passion, I guess.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

You've just blown my mind and I need answers.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Easy, Goofy's part of the 1%.

Damnit Stuuu'uu's' we were just about to go off-topic

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

What political party do you figure Goofy for? I'm guessing he is an Eisenhower Republican. I've got Fred Flintstone pegged for a New Deal Democrat. Elmer Fudd is definitely a Tea Partier.

The Tasmanian Devil is an anarchist.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

Naa, Yosemite Sam is the Tea partier. Elmer Fudd is a Nader guy but he won't vote green anymore

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Shaggy is sleeping in Zuccotti Park as a member of OWS.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

Dora and Diego are members of a militant splinter group of La Raza

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'm not gonna let this turn into a pizza picture-posting fest. This thread is too important. Want to know why there have been 14 pages without losing focus? Because it's struck a chord with a lot of people. You can marginalize the protestors, poke fun at their organization and lack of polish. But maybe it's important to wrestle with ideas. Maybe questioning the existing order is a vital stage in changing it. Should they be occupying Washington? Fuck yeah. But Cross, why the constant need to refer to the Tea Party? You think they're better because they have a consistent message that they preach in absolutes, even if you'll admit that that message is based on smoke and mirrors? Is it so important to have an answer that you cling to a bullshit one?

You have to admit that this thing has gotten way bigger than virtually anyone could have imagined. It started with Wall Street. It then spread throughout the country. For crying out loud, it has since turned international! Personally, I'm enjoying this. A lot.

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

Ok, so explain to me why they're not.
Because you know Obama recieved more campaign donations from Wall Street than any other candidate in history...but he's their boy.
Hypocrisy at its finest.

No, I don't think they're better because they had a consistent message, I think they're better because they actually got shit done.

They got politically active and actually achieved their goals. They pushed candidates and defined the tone of an entire election.
THAT's how you get change in this country.

Meanwhile last night in Oakland:


Is that how the left expects to get the change they want? This country doesn't change policy based on fucking street mobs.
GROW UP

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I had to work my local protest group yesterday as they rallied for a "support occupy Oakland" march. The speakers had all this great stuff to say about how the Oakland protestors shut down the port and had various negative things to say about the police. Sorry, but the minute you go from peace to burning or breaking shit, ie - rioting, you lose all credibility. Those with the occupy movement that don't agree with that crap ought to step up and condemn that activity. The ones I dealt with last night embraced and supported it. Real nice.

Oh, how quickly we forget the lessons learned at the Boston massacre!

(thats for you ksquirewhatever )

If you're arguing what happened in Oakland last night is positive and productive for the movement, or even a valid tactic to achieve their goals I'm all ears.

Someone face up to it and defend it...pretty please.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

hell no, I was just making a joke.

oh...damn. Ok, I'll just wait here until someone does

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, I believe "they" are, at least part of they. There are protests going on nationwide as you point out later in the post. Why do they stick with Obama? I don't know. Habit maybe? But who are they supposed to support? You don't like to admit it, but you end up supporting the GOP mainstays in elections don't you? I don't see that as so different from these anti-Wall Streeters still supporting Obama.

I think you have a very good point that it's the rules that need to be changed, and that centers more on government than business. But it's a two-front battle if you ask me. Getting business out of government by changing the rules should be the priority, but there are other ways of affecting business too. Vote with your wallet, like you like to say. So in occupying Wall Street, there can be ways to achieve their goals by different avenues.

It's more baffling that just "well they're left so who else are they going to support?"

One of the main points of contention for the occupy folks are taxpayer funded bailouts....pisses me off to no end too.
Well the person you have to go after if that's one of your main issues is Obama. He voted for TARP, he signed the Freddy and Fanny bailout, he pushed for and signed the GM bailout....AIG was too big to fail etc. etc.

If another main point of contention is corporate and Wall street money influencing politicians...again, look no further than Obama. He's a god damned poster child for corporate campaign financing and shady deals.
Mad at GE for not paying any taxes last year? No sweat, you can find their CEO at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue as Obama's Jobs adviser.

Pardon my incredulity here.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I think this highlights the main problem very well; that people are too busy drinking the kool-aid to read the sign that says 'rat poison'.

_________________

"It is the kind of posture that Oakland is familiar with. It was the scene of violent protests in 2009 and 2010 over the killing of an unarmed black man by a white transit officer. Downtown businesses were looted, windows smashed and fires set.

Then, as now, police blamed the violence on a small group of anarchists, many from outside the city.

In 2003, a police crackdown on an anti-war demonstration at the Port of Oakland left protesters and dockworkers hospitalized and resulted in police getting a new, stricter crowd-control policy.

The history of clashes goes back even further to demonstrations in the 1960s over the Vietnam War and the draft, among other issues."



It looks like this has more to do with the poor relationship the Oakland police has with its citizens than it does the OWS movement. This is certainly not something the OWS folks want. Violence will be the death of their movement and they know that.

Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time