Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Liability]

Don't kick the Shitters out of the Park.

Fleas need to eat, too.

All We are Saying is Give Fleas a Chance.

 

[newpolitics]

Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.

“It’s like Walmart for rats,’’ Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.

“There’s a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water,” Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the city’s health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.

He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.

He said there’s inadequate hand washing, the No. 1 culprit for food-borne illnesses in restaurants.

Read more: Zuccotti Park a health hazard: expert - NYPOST.com

The #1 culprit for food-borne illnesses are factory farms, which exist because of the needs to cut-cost and increase profits, allowing massive animal suffering and environmetal damage, and are products of the few giant corporations that produce the vast majority of American food products. They have no scruples, and are fast leading to the likely production of a super virus that we can not stop because of the amount of anti-biotics they use in their food and the extremely unhealthy conditions the animals live in, and you idiots support them. You are supporting the very thing that may very well kill us all, and I find it HILARIOUS!!! Oh, the IRONY! This is a fact and is not disputable, so don't try to make this a partisan or subjective thing. It isn't. Even in this small instance, it is easy to look at corporate activity as the culprit itself, not people who are actively protesting this ridiculous economic system we have right now, at least, its current manifestation. Get private money out of government. that is the only solution. lobbysim, campaign contibutions, corruption.....all must go.

 

[Katzndogz]

The protest sites are factory farms? Oh BRUTHA.

That's why they need a little dose of reality. Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease. I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.

 

[newpolitics]

The protest sites are factory farms? Oh BRUTHA.

That's why they need a little dose of reality. Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease. I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.

Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.

 

[Dragon]

How does that explain your naivete'

It "explains" that it is not naivete. I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I know that you are completely full of shit.

Obama is in bed with Wall Street and with everyone organizing this very public goat-****.

Obama is in bed with Wall Street, true. And that by itself means he is NOT in bed with OWS. He is trying to be -- but that's trying to eat his cake and have it, as long as he remains in bed with Wall Street. A man cannot serve two masters, I seem to recall someone saying a long time ago.

 

[Dragon]

I guess it was inevitable that the conversation here veered around to violence. There's always a potential of violence arising in connection with large-scale protest movement like this. In fact, there's already been violence, but it consisted of violent acts against the movement by the police (which is usually how it starts), and so far no one has been killed.

My own view is that it is impossible to overthrow the U.S. government by violence, but very possible that the end game of this movement will indeed be revolution. That may sound contradictory, but it's not. Revolution need not be violent. In fact, in its overthrow-the-government-and-win phase, it is never very violent. The violence, if there is to be any, comes before that, and sometimes after.

If you look at revolutionary movements in the past, all of them have succeeded not through violent attacks on the government but through campaigns to obtain popular support. Even movements that did engage in violence, such as the Chinese Communists in the 1930s and 1940s, ultimately won by gaining the support of the people. The Chinese Communists formed an army and engaged in military operations because they were under military attack by the Kuomintang (and also, during World War II, by the Japanese). At the same time, they engaged in land reform to take land from the landlords and give it to the peasants, in building schools and hospitals, helping the poor, providing justice, and generally demonstrating that they would serve the people's interests better than their opponents. Military operations gave them the opportunity to do this in the countryside, and protected them against attacks by government military forces. It was not the military forces that won them victory, but their campaigns of public service, which attracted the support of the Chinese people until they had a clear majority, at which point the government troops deserted. When the Communists finally won in 1949, there was very little fighting because there was hardly anything left on the government's side to fight against.

In the U.S., a popular uprising, as long as it remains nonviolent, cannot legally be suppressed by the government. There is therefore no need for the Occupy movement to arm itself. It would also be self-defeating to engage in violent as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. To do that would give the government legal cause to suppress the movement by force, and the government has overwhelming force on its side. If this ends in revolution, at that point it will be unnecessary to fight against the U.S. military because the military will desert the government. Until we reach that stage, it will remain impossible to defeat the military with any conceivable force raised by a popular uprising. We can't fight the Army, and in the end we won't have to.

The next step, and it is in planning and operation as I type this, will be to convene a popular convention in Philadelphia (chosen for obvious symbolic reasons) to present demands to the U.S. government. If those demands are rejected, the next step after that will be to organize further nonviolent civil disobedience, perhaps a general strike, perhaps other action. Laws will certainly be broken (they're already being broken), but the movement will not become violent. It won't have to.

If things reach a point where revolution becomes both necessary and possible, it will consist of an unarmed march on Washington by masses of people, the refusal of police and military to stop the march, and the seating of the movement's own democratically elected officials to replace the ones selected by the corrupt and rigged election process we have. There should be no more need for violence here than there was in the Soviet Union to overthrow that regime.

 

[Katzndogz]

The protest sites are factory farms? Oh BRUTHA.

That's why they need a little dose of reality. Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease. I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.

Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.

SEWERS and open sewage is the perfect breeding ground for a virus or a super virus, which is what the protest sites are. They are just people living in what amounts to open latrines. Don't get me wrong. I'm on the side of the virus.

 

[Big Fitz]

Translation:

GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE

So it's the same demand since 1890. Quelle suprise!

I pulled out my Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution. You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.

Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%. There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. Just some food for thought.

Wow, hadn't realized you responded to me you were so busy finding pseudo-intellectual reasons to justify your whining of gimme gimme gimme and eat the rich, with a half-witty image.

You do realize that many of our founding fathers were corporate interests in this nation. From publishers to brewers, plantation owners and budding industrialists in a pre-industrial age, they are the ones who revolted against the force of an abusive big government which they had no ability to demand equitable treatment from. The forces driving much of the revolutionary war were economic where the big imperialist government was demanding they surrender their hard earned money with no say in the process or how it was taxed.

This is your Occupados desire. More government, more spending, more taxes, more oppression. I go by one of your encampments every work day 2 times a day. My customers who have to work down there and deal with you assholes are sick to the teeth with your infantile demands, inability to have even a coherent message from breath to breath and their insatiable desire to be heard, but lack even an iota of truth, rationality or equality for anyone.

The lice have revolted and are demanding more from the dog and don't give a shit how they get it.

BTW, if you really want to be taken seriously, you need to get the anti-war, ecofascist, socialists and anti-semites out of your protest group. Their signs make it look, once again, as if it's a social event for fucktards.

 

[newpolitics]

The protest sites are factory farms? Oh BRUTHA.

That's why they need a little dose of reality. Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease. I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.

Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.

SEWERS and open sewage is the perfect breeding ground for a virus or a super virus, which is what the protest sites are. They are just people living in what amounts to open latrines. Don't get me wrong. I'm on the side of the virus.

Haha... I might be too, but I have to disagree with you. Sewers and open sewage are breeding grounds for bacteria, yes, but not necessarily a viral plague, which require a number of 'perfect' conditions to develop into something that could kill us all, one of which is full living system to propagate to the full lethality that might represent a global plague, such as in a pig or chicken. The closest circumstances that might satisfy the many conditions for creating such a super-virus in todays world, is the factory farm.

 

[Big Fitz]

So it's the same demand since 1890. Quelle suprise!

I pulled out my Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution. You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.

Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%. There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. Just some food for thought.

Wow, hadn't realized you responded to me you were so busy finding pseudo-intellectual reasons to justify your whining of gimme gimme gimme and eat the rich, with a half-witty image.

You do realize that many of our founding fathers were corporate interests in this nation. From publishers to brewers, plantation owners and budding industrialists in a pre-industrial age, they are the ones who revolted against the force of an abusive big government which they had no ability to demand equitable treatment from. The forces driving much of the revolutionary war were economic where the big imperialist government was demanding they surrender their hard earned money with no say in the process or how it was taxed.

This is your Occupados desire. More government, more spending, more taxes, more oppression. I go by one of your encampments every work day 2 times a day. My customers who have to work down there and deal with you assholes are sick to the teeth with your infantile demands, inability to have even a coherent message from breath to breath and their insatiable desire to be heard, but lack even an iota of truth, rationality or equality for anyone.

The lice have revolted and are demanding more from the dog and don't give a shit how they get it.

BTW, if you really want to be taken seriously, you need to get the anti-war, ecofascist, socialists and anti-semites out of your protest group. Their signs make it look, once again, as if it's a social event for fucktards.

Oh, Wiz Kid, Matthew Laborteaux.... another quick point. You can Wiki, to see how few of your Founding Fathers would have been part of your false 99% and would have been the targets of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Brown_1976-9

• At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
• Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.
• Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
• Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission Society, Hamilton was an officer, and when Jay was governor of New York in 1798 he signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
• Broom and Few were small farmers.
• Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.
• Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
• Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.
• McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.

So let's see. Who're the bad guys to the Occupados today?

Every founding father except... ummmm those who held public office?

They would support the Occupados? Would this be before or AFTER you stole all their wealth without even a thank you or by your leave.

Note something I don't see in that list.

None were professional Political Activists
None were Teachers or Professors
None were in Unions
None were on the Public Dole (aka welfare)
None were Students

If by this circumstantial evidence alone, your movement is distinctly against the founding principles of the founding fathers if not their personage themselves.

I dunno, I think that smacks of a whole lot of ingratitude in my book. What else is new? These punks probably never appreciated or were grateful for anything someone gave them out of charity... hence their total disdain for it in it's true form.

 

[Katzndogz]

I guess it was inevitable that the conversation here veered around to violence. There's always a potential of violence arising in connection with large-scale protest movement like this. In fact, there's already been violence, but it consisted of violent acts against the movement by the police (which is usually how it starts), and so far no one has been killed.

My own view is that it is impossible to overthrow the U.S. government by violence, but very possible that the end game of this movement will indeed be revolution. That may sound contradictory, but it's not. Revolution need not be violent. In fact, in its overthrow-the-government-and-win phase, it is never very violent. The violence, if there is to be any, comes before that, and sometimes after.

If you look at revolutionary movements in the past, all of them have succeeded not through violent attacks on the government but through campaigns to obtain popular support. Even movements that did engage in violence, such as the Chinese Communists in the 1930s and 1940s, ultimately won by gaining the support of the people. The Chinese Communists formed an army and engaged in military operations because they were under military attack by the Kuomintang (and also, during World War II, by the Japanese). At the same time, they engaged in land reform to take land from the landlords and give it to the peasants, in building schools and hospitals, helping the poor, providing justice, and generally demonstrating that they would serve the people's interests better than their opponents. Military operations gave them the opportunity to do this in the countryside, and protected them against attacks by government military forces. It was not the military forces that won them victory, but their campaigns of public service, which attracted the support of the Chinese people until they had a clear majority, at which point the government troops deserted. When the Communists finally won in 1949, there was very little fighting because there was hardly anything left on the government's side to fight against.

In the U.S., a popular uprising, as long as it remains nonviolent, cannot legally be suppressed by the government. There is therefore no need for the Occupy movement to arm itself. It would also be self-defeating to engage in violent as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. To do that would give the government legal cause to suppress the movement by force, and the government has overwhelming force on its side. If this ends in revolution, at that point it will be unnecessary to fight against the U.S. military because the military will desert the government. Until we reach that stage, it will remain impossible to defeat the military with any conceivable force raised by a popular uprising. We can't fight the Army, and in the end we won't have to.

The next step, and it is in planning and operation as I type this, will be to convene a popular convention in Philadelphia (chosen for obvious symbolic reasons) to present demands to the U.S. government. If those demands are rejected, the next step after that will be to organize further nonviolent civil disobedience, perhaps a general strike, perhaps other action. Laws will certainly be broken (they're already being broken), but the movement will not become violent. It won't have to.

If things reach a point where revolution becomes both necessary and possible, it will consist of an unarmed march on Washington by masses of people, the refusal of police and military to stop the march, and the seating of the movement's own democratically elected officials to replace the ones selected by the corrupt and rigged election process we have. There should be no more need for violence here than there was in the Soviet Union to overthrow that regime.

Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently? If so, not much is going to help you.

Addressing the rest of your wishful thinking. What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back. The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.
I welcome the Shitter convention and list of demands. I welcome the slothful and lazy to go on strike since they aren't working anyway it won't make any difference. These activites are being permitted to continue. They will be permitted to continue until they aren't anymore. Then the left will either have to fight in the streets or withdraw in whatever hole they came out of.

When the shiftless of Los Angeles decided to protest and burn the city down. It continued, with halfhearted participation by the police until the people stood up. When Korean shop owners took to the rooftops with rifles, the one thing people knew was it could be done. They could do it. That's when neighborhoods barricaded themselves in with residents armed and ready.

That's really what the left is going to be facing.

 

[Katzndogz]

The left imagines that a general strike, where people who don't have jobs refuse to go to work is going to hurt everyone.

It won't.

A general strike by the business class however, would be catastrophic. Some Tea Party employers right now are vowing not to hire anyone until obama is out of office. That's a strike that would really hurt. You want to see pain? Try a few employers closing for a week and laying everyone off without pay. Employers don't do that because it's not worth it to them. Make it worth it and there is a whole different end to that story.

 

[Dragon]

Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently?

The Tsar used force to try to wipe out the democratic and Marxist movements against him. Naturally, it was necessary that those movements defend themselves. If the U.S. government were to do the same (which it is forbidden by law to do), then the same would be true here. The final overthrow of the Tsar was obtained by the democratic movement with minimal violence.

I was talking about the overthrow of the Soviet Union rather than the Tsar, though. Gorbachev used rather than trying to fight the popular movements. By the time a coup overthrew him and tried to crack down, it was too late. The troops refused to fire on the protesters, and the government was overthrown with hardly a shot being fired.

What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back. The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.

Setting aside your mistake about what constitutes a majority, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that at some point, right-wing militia rather than police and military are going to try to destroy this movement by violence. Is that it?

I need you to clarify before I respond. All I'll say right now is that if you think that kind of vigilante move can succeed, you really need to see your doctor about your meds. They may need a change.

But I guess I will say something about "majorities."

The Tea Party has the support of about 25% of the people, maximum. That's the movement itself. Now let's take a look at the issues backed by the TP, other than the one issue it has in common with OWS (corporate corruption of the government).

The Tea Party wants to cut taxes on the rich (well, on everyone, but cutting taxes on lower-income people isn't so controversial). OWS favors raising taxes on the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll found here: Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich, Americans favor increasing taxes on corporations by 70-26, and increasing income taxes on those making over $200k by 66-32. On this issue, OWS is in the majority, the TP in the minority.

The Tea Party wants to eliminate or reduce certain areas of government spending, including education and the social safety net (other than Medicare and Social Security). OWS favors increasing this spending, especially on education. Again turning to Gallup, we find here Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense that Americans oppose cuts in education spending 67-32, and oppose cuts in anti-poverty programs 55-39. Again, the TP takes a minority position here.

In fact, I think it's probably safe to say that any issue where the TP enjoys majority support is likely to be one it shares with the Occupy movement.

Occupy is itself, as a movement, supported by a majority of the people. I don't think at this point that a majority of the people would actually support overthrowing the government and replacing it, however. So we're not ready for revolution at this time. Also, I think it's likely that if Occupy were to turn violent, it would be opposed by most people. (For that matter, such a move would be opposed by me.)

We may never reach a point where revolution becomes possible, but if so it will be because reform happens instead to take the corrupting influence of money out of politics and restore democracy. Either that way or by revolution, though, Occupy is going to win. It's only a matter of time.

 

[flacaltenn]

The left imagines that a general strike, where people who don't have jobs refuse to go to work is going to hurt everyone.

It won't.

A general strike by the business class however, would be catastrophic. Some Tea Party employers right now are vowing not to hire anyone until obama is out of office. That's a strike that would really hurt. You want to see pain? Try a few employers closing for a week and laying everyone off without pay. Employers don't do that because it's not worth it to them. Make it worth it and there is a whole different end to that story.

Oh boy!! Does this mean I get to see the last 2 installments of Atlas Shrugged BEFORE the producers get out of debt from the 1st one???

 

[Katzndogz]

Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently?

The Tsar used force to try to wipe out the democratic and Marxist movements against him. Naturally, it was necessary that those movements defend themselves. If the U.S. government were to do the same (which it is forbidden by law to do), then the same would be true here. The final overthrow of the Tsar was obtained by the democratic movement with minimal violence.

I was talking about the overthrow of the Soviet Union rather than the Tsar, though. Gorbachev used rather than trying to fight the popular movements. By the time a coup overthrew him and tried to crack down, it was too late. The troops refused to fire on the protesters, and the government was overthrown with hardly a shot being fired.

What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back. The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.

Setting aside your mistake about what constitutes a majority, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that at some point, right-wing militia rather than police and military are going to try to destroy this movement by violence. Is that it?

I need you to clarify before I respond. All I'll say right now is that if you think that kind of vigilante move can succeed, you really need to see your doctor about your meds. They may need a change.

But I guess I will say something about "majorities."

The Tea Party has the support of about 25% of the people, maximum. That's the movement itself. Now let's take a look at the issues backed by the TP, other than the one issue it has in common with OWS (corporate corruption of the government).

The Tea Party wants to cut taxes on the rich (well, on everyone, but cutting taxes on lower-income people isn't so controversial). OWS favors raising taxes on the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll found here: Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich, Americans favor increasing taxes on corporations by 70-26, and increasing income taxes on those making over $200k by 66-32. On this issue, OWS is in the majority, the TP in the minority.

The Tea Party wants to eliminate or reduce certain areas of government spending, including education and the social safety net (other than Medicare and Social Security). OWS favors increasing this spending, especially on education. Again turning to Gallup, we find here Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense that Americans oppose cuts in education spending 67-32, and oppose cuts in anti-poverty programs 55-39. Again, the TP takes a minority position here.

In fact, I think it's probably safe to say that any issue where the TP enjoys majority support is likely to be one it shares with the Occupy movement.

Occupy is itself, as a movement, supported by a majority of the people. I don't think at this point that a majority of the people would actually support overthrowing the government and replacing it, however. So we're not ready for revolution at this time. Also, I think it's likely that if Occupy were to turn violent, it would be opposed by most people. (For that matter, such a move would be opposed by me.)

We may never reach a point where revolution becomes possible, but if so it will be because reform happens instead to take the corrupting influence of money out of politics and restore democracy. Either that way or by revolution, though, Occupy is going to win. It's only a matter of time.

The Occupy (bowel) movement is not going to to win, because to win, we will have become Greece. We won't have a revolution but we will have a civil war. Which will be most appreciated and necessary.

Suppose the Occupy (bowel) movement starts to achieve its goals. What would that really mean? Wealth would leave the country, businesses would leave. Unemployment would grow, major corporations will abandon the US and go to China or India. This is already happening. The wealth wouldn't be redistributed, it would just be gone. OWS doesn't support education, just ineffective teachers. Just unions and in reality most Americans today despise the unions.

I personally would welcome an intervention by the Chinese to protect their investment and their debt. As more and more American companies flee to China this becomes a more realistic outcome. At least the Chinese have experience in putting movements like the occupiers down.

The occupiers winning is not realistic under any circumstances.

 

[Dragon]

The Occupy movement is not going to to win, because to win, we will have become Greece.

That statement doesn't even make any sense. We will become a relatively poor European country that doesn't control its own currency? That's what Greece is.

Suppose the Occupy movement starts to achieve its goals. What would that really mean? Wealth would leave the country, businesses would leave.

Is that what happened in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s? Because the policies being advocated are, for the most part, not new. They're ones we had in place during those decades.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years? The economic downfall today had the seeds sown way back when. Especially the 60s! The 60s saw an expansion of the welfare state that is so burdensome today.

The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it. That's what will happen. Especially if this continues. People are getting pretty fed up even now. I hope the occupiers stay, stay for a long time but it's almost over now.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once New Yorkers started calling the site "the Big Stink", it's almost done.

 

[Dragon]

Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years?

No, we are suffering from the switch from those policies that began in the 1980s.

 

[EriktheRed]

Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years? The economic downfall today had the seeds sown way back when. Especially the 60s! The 60s saw an expansion of the welfare state that is so burdensome today.

The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it. That's what will happen. Especially if this continues. People are getting pretty fed up even now. I hope the occupiers stay, stay for a long time but it's almost over now.

The movement's already succeeded in turning the national conversation away from austerity and budget-cutting to income inequality. Republicans and even a good many Dems are bitching about it because they're trapped on the wrong side of that conversation.

The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it.

Considering how some issues - like higher taxes on the wealthy - are polling, that's a bit optimistic on your part.