Half of me agrees completely with this explanation, and the other half says, being “old news” hasn’t stopped the media from ridiculously over-covering to death countless less relevant stories for months despite their lack of any real developments.
I can’t imagine why. Their demands and proposed solutions seem so reasonable.
Bear in mind that, unlike the early Tea Party demos which gathered and dispersed, the active and continuing occupation of Wall Street, etc., is in practice limited to people who can take weeks off to sit in the park, which limits its numbers. Doesn’t matter, the point is to keep it going so that everybody who can’t do that but sympathizes can cheer them on and keep the wheels squeaking. What difficult thing gets done in politics without that?
That page says “User Submitted.” It does not represent an official list of demands.
Why does that make it a joke? People are interested in the protest, and whether they agree or disagree, they’re paying attention.
This has been said a lot already, but the fact that a few people are holding matching signs does not mean that they represent the entire movement. The basic premise of the movement is about loosening corporate control on American politics. “Forgiving” education loans is far too specific.
And yet one person among hundreds of thousands is holding a sign of Obama as a witch doctor, and all of a sudden the Tea Party must be racist. Or the sign of the guy talking about guns - therefore they must be violent.
If it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
Well, you can therefore offer a cite that shows that most of the tea party attendees surrounded the fellow with the insulting sign to to tell others “he is not with us” and also made quick signs telling all what an asshole the troll was, No?
I guess it is not that hard to see efforts like that coming from the left and from a Jewish site no less.
Hell, you guys don’t have any morals to be hypocritical about! How does one display hypocrisy in relation to greed, give a panhandler five bucks?
[QUOTE=Mr Smashy]
hundreds of thousands
[/QUOTE]
:eek::dubious:
That’s bound to get someone’s attention, right?
It’s called “socializing the risk” and “privatizing the gain”. Now, where did they learn that?
Can’t blame that one on the dirty fucking hippies!
People are interested in the novelty of it…like a pet rock, a concert ticket, etc. The OWS will be an answer on a pub trivia question in about 5 years.
If you do not understand the protests, it says a lot about how poorly you have kept up with the financial crisis and the bankers who caused it. Bof A got 45 billion from TARP. They continue to tap Freddie and Fannie for 2.1 trillion in bailouts. Many of their loans were fraudulent through their affiliate Countrywide.
Hell. the government gave them 7 billion to modify home loans to keep people in their homes. They of course did not bother to do it.
On April 15, 2009, a lot of folks gathered at protests and rallies. By April 16th, 2009, most of them had gone home. Would an observer on that date have been justified in concluding that the Tea Party movement had run out of steam, or jumped the shark?
And yet, when a group of people rally and protest for a month straight, and then the numbers start dwindling (but there are still a significant number of people left protesting and rallying still), that’s evidence of the Occupy movement running out of steam.
How does this work again?
Yes, I’m sure you do.
Some people do. Haw was an extreme case but you can’t say he didn’t try.
Potentially true, although I note that the protests are both “killing tourism” and becoming tourist sites themselves.
Makes my point. A Western Democracy can tolerate that kind of protest indefinitely without the government collapsing or forcibly terminating the protest.
And yet the government tried for years to terminate it. Clearly it must have been having some effect, even if only as an irritant.