[QUOTE=Marbalo;35787852]
It's quite sad, maybe Im being too pessimistic and cynical, I dont know.[/QUOTE]
The nation rose on the backs of violence for the most part. It's the only thing that'll rattle cages in this society. In my opinion and from what I've gathered from my dips into history. What needs to happen is a hard reset: Go back to zero. Get rid of the crap that got us here, start anew. Yes, this is sort of Marxist and idealistic, but I feel that's the only real choice as things aren't going to improve in the immediate, and at this rate far, future.
Maybe I just want to do what Mao did and make everyone throw teachers out windows. Except replace teacher with corporate owners.
over 2700 at oscgar grant plaza in occupy oakland, suppose to be a big rally in an hour
[QUOTE=Vaught;35788056]The nation rose on the backs of violence for the most part. It's the only thing that'll rattle cages in this society. In my opinion and from what I've gathered from my dips into history. What needs to happen is a hard reset: Go back to zero. Get rid of the crap that got us here, start anew. Yes, this is sort of Marxist and idealistic[/QUOTE]
you call that idealistic? that's the opposite of idealistic.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35788141]you call that idealistic? that's the opposite of idealistic.[/QUOTE]
Eh. It is to me.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35787852]With respect to those involved in OWS, of course. I admire their spirit and their cause but I just dont see it happening realistically.
I can only see violence and rioting as a solution, because physical harm is the only thing that actually scares the people on top, the corrupt politicians, the wealthy con men, etc. It's the only universal thing that is guaranteed to scare anyone of any status or of any wealth shitless. They dont care about your protests or your 'mic checks' or any of that, the money still keeps flowing. And as long as it's flowing your problems are irrelevant to them. And maybe by blocking a highway or two you deprave them of a couple of thousand dollars, but that's hardly making a significant impact.
It's quite sad, maybe Im being too pessimistic and cynical, I dont know.[/QUOTE]
Why is everyone so quick to forget civil disobedience? That's way more effective than violence because it worries the people in charge, but also tends to make people not look at you as a violent thug.
[QUOTE=acidcj;35787390]You realize they have a permit for this, right?[/QUOTE]
Im pretty sure you cant get a permit for blocking traffic and breaking stuff.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35788311]Im pretty sure you cant get a permit for blocking traffic and breaking stuff.[/QUOTE]
Blocking traffic, I think you can. Not for destroying private property though.
It must suck to be driving a car when this is happening, on your way to work, end up getting blocked then get fired because the whole marching made you late.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35788326]Blocking traffic, I think you can. Not for destroying private property though.[/QUOTE]
Well protesting in general is blocking traffic. I believe the post I was responding too was talking about going out and just blocking traffic on random streets.
[QUOTE=Vaught;35788174]Eh. It is to me.[/QUOTE] You're talking about destroying civilization basically and easily ruining the lives of tens of millions if not more. You'd basically destroy everything we've built already. Not to mention the massive loss of life associated. I fully support the Occupy Movement and believe we need a fundamental change in the function of this nation. But I can not honestly say that I believe open violence would be a good idea at this stage, and definitely do not feel that a complete destruction of the nation would be at all desirable.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35788311]Im pretty sure you cant get a permit for blocking traffic and breaking stuff.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the march, which is blocking traffic, and you can get a permit for. I also find it hard to blame thousands of people for the actions of a few, stupid and radical troublemakers.
despite state of emergency, large march takes off in Seattle
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35787852]With respect to those involved in OWS, of course. I admire their spirit and their cause but I just dont see it happening realistically.
I can only see violence and rioting as a solution, because physical harm is the only thing that actually scares the people on top, the corrupt politicians, the wealthy con men, etc. It's the only universal thing that is guaranteed to scare anyone of any status or of any wealth shitless. They dont care about your protests or your 'mic checks' or any of that, the money still keeps flowing. And as long as it's flowing your problems are irrelevant to them. And maybe by blocking a highway or two you deprave them of a couple of thousand dollars, but that's hardly making a significant impact.
It's quite sad, maybe Im being too pessimistic and cynical, I dont know.[/QUOTE]
The only thing rioting would achieve is discrediting themselves, mass property damage, and mass arrests. Not to mention any areas that have declared a State of Emergency get to use the National Guard as riot control.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;35764028]yeah i'm sure that will go over well
come into work the next day: "You're fired."
come into school the next day: "You have detention for the next 2 weeks."[/QUOTE]
That's assuming you have a job.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35787852]With respect to those involved in OWS, of course. I admire their spirit and their cause but I just dont see it happening realistically.
I can only see violence and rioting as a solution, because physical harm is the only thing that actually scares the people on top, the corrupt politicians, the wealthy con men, etc. It's the only universal thing that is guaranteed to scare anyone of any status or of any wealth shitless. They dont care about your protests or your 'mic checks' or any of that, the money still keeps flowing. And as long as it's flowing your problems are irrelevant to them. And maybe by blocking a highway or two you deprave them of a couple of thousand dollars, but that's hardly making a significant impact.
It's quite sad, maybe Im being too pessimistic and cynical, I dont know.[/QUOTE]
Or you could, you know, VOTE.
The system is only corrupt if Americans let it be corrupt. There isn't a fucking landed aristocracy or autocracy in place, literally anyone can run for any office and literally anyone can be kicked out of it. What prevents Occupy from running candidates on an Occupy platform, using the same grassroots methods that they've been using to organize these protests? If they stayed independent (not letting themselves fall into the Tea Party trap) they could legitimately make an impact. If all the people out there shouting slogans were out voting in November the impact could be immense. But no, apparently because the people in the system are corrupt (don't disagree with that btw, just making that clear) the system itself will corrupt anyone who touches it. So it's best to just... yell at people until they do what you want? But wait, not even that because
[QUOTE]making demands of a corrupt system makes our success contingent on the will of others. It legitimizes the corrupted, it disempowers us.[/QUOTE]
So why are they even protesting? They want people to listen. Who? Clearly not the "corrupted" in power. So who? The American people? What are they to do?
[QUOTE]an Occupy action or group you are empowered to start it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so just keep Occupying. Why? What are they supposed to accomplish? Who's supposed to listen? If their actions are their demands, then what is their demand to be interpreted as? Do they want to fix the system? Do they want to bring the whole edifice tumbling down? Do they want to initiate vast changes? [B]WHAT IS OUR ONE DEMAND[/B]? What is the point of-
[QUOTE]Occupy Wall Street is structured on anarchist organizing principles.[/QUOTE]
I'm done. This movement is doomed to fail. Bye.
vote for who? anything except the democratic party or the republican party is systematically incapable of being elected.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35788835]vote for who? anything except the democratic party or the republican party is systematically incapable of being elected.[/QUOTE]
You would have to run the candidate as a democrat sympathetic or supportive of the OWS movement. Kind of like the Tea Party with republicans.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35788835]vote for who? anything except the democratic party or the republican party is systematically incapable of being elected.[/QUOTE]
Well of course, even that has some exceptions. See Vermont for example.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35788835]vote for who? anything except the democratic party or the republican party is systematically incapable of being elected.[/QUOTE]
Except to my knowledge most Americans are just as tired of the two parties and their candidates as Occupy is. This is such an anti-incumbent anti-establishment year it's not even funny. A third party could make an unprecedented killing if they did it right.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35788835]vote for who? anything except the democratic party or the republican party is systematically incapable of being elected.[/QUOTE]
That's only true BECAUSE people have that mindset. I'm tired of this argument because it's really ignorant. It's stupid. People are creating their own problem situation when they believe this.
"We only vote for Republicans and Democrats, because no one else will be voted for enough to get elected!"
Well [I]no fucking shit[/I], [I]really[/I]?
no uh it's actually legally impossible for third party political parties to get political power, not to mention the other two parties also actively fight against it.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35788747]You dont have to tell me violence is 'wrong'. That's a given. Im saying that it may be a drastic solution to a drastic problem.
I simply do not see the corrupt coming forth and acknowledging their wrongdoings because there are people outside sitting on a lawn with some signs. That doesn't rock any foundation and as you can clearly see, the population isn't even fully supportive of the OSW movement when we got delusional 'hardworking people' who created the "We are the 53%" nonsense.
Hell, just look at this thread if you want a first-hand example. People are complaining about things going too slow, too fast, too violent, too politically incorrect - a million reasons to justify their own apathy. What would you propose to bring long-lasting change to the US with all these factors combined? Mass rioting is sort of a societal nuke, a final solution, if you wish. And Im kind of leaning towards it right now.[/QUOTE]
Again, what's the problem with civil disobedience? Why are you going straight from protest to violence, when there is a much more effective alternative in the middle ground?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35789033]no uh it's actually legally impossible for third party political parties to get political power, not to mention the other two parties also actively fight against it.[/QUOTE]
Uh, it's not legally impossible.
Who the fuck told you that load of shit?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35789053']Uh, it's not legally impossible.
Who the fuck told you that load of shit?[/QUOTE]
ballot laws, winner-take-all, debate rules, etc
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35789119]Like what?
And it's probably because Ive never seen peaceful protests actually working. (Besides Gandhi, which isn't really a valid example since he was protesting against the abuse of basic human rights and discrimination - usually slightly different than what the US is facing.)[/QUOTE]
Civil disobedience isn't a peaceful protest, it's a nonviolent protest. Civil disobedience isn't people holding signs and marching around. It's literally breaking the law in a non violent way. Blacks sitting in at the lunch counters, Gandhi marching to the shore to get his own sea salt.
Occupy setting up tents in parks was a great start, but I would like to see more people sitting in at banks, sitting in foreclosed homes, and other disruptive activity done in a civil manner. Marching is fun and all, but the real victory comes through irritating the ruling class enough that they send police at you, and then responding to the force with disciplined peace.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35789097]ballot laws, winner-take-all, debate rules, etc[/QUOTE]
Explain. Because ballot laws only go as far as to say that a party or candidate must have so many signatures as a show of support or registered members of the party in order to appear on the ballot. It tends to disadvantage new and third parties, but there's hardly a state or local election where a third party or independent isn't on the ballot, and third parties show up on many states' ballots for presidential elections. It disadvantages parties that don't have support,a nd they don't have support because of your bullshit reasoning above.
Has nothing to do with the parties themselves. Winner-take-all system is based on majority vote. It's biased towards popular parties. That's not legally saying that third parties can't be voted in. That's saying that the party with the most votes is. If a third party was actually voted for because people stopped using the stupid reasoning you gave above, then they'd win.
Has nothing to do with the parties themselves, and is not a legal issue. Three reasons:
1) Primary debates are generally hosted by the party for its party. Of course they aren't going to invite other party representatives into their debates.
2) The major media focuses on popular candidates. There's no legal reason this is not the case, and historically, with Ross Perot and Ron Paul, independents that are popular are shown in the debates. At the congressional, state, and local level, this is almost always the case, because...
3) United States law prohibits a public/state entity from barring a political party or candidate from participating in a public/state hosted political debate. We saw this in my own state in the 80s, when the Socialist Party and the Libertarian Party sued the state for being barred from entering the debate with the Republicans and Democrats running for local office.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35789232']
I don't think you know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
hey no need to get angry at me mate, i vote green party.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35789261]hey no need to get angry at me mate, i vote green party.[/QUOTE]
I'm not angry, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't think you know what you're talking about.
I feel more bad for the officers than the OWS protesters at this point. If you are in blue and so much as bump into a protester you will have forty videos on youtube hailing you as the oppressive arm of the system.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35789293']I'm not angry, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't think you know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
i'm just trying to say that there's an establishment that actively promotes two parties over another. Ron Paul's base didn't necessarily expand yet he garnered far more attention simply by being a republican instead of an independent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.