First American Revolution?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**JEB_Stuart**

I was recently reading a story on CBS' Philadelphia affiliate website and I was rather put off by a story that I read there. It was describing the goal of the "Occupy" movement, so called of the "99%", to hold a National Assembly in Philly next year. They used terms like "First American Revolution" and the like in describing their plans for the future. While thus far these actions aren't overtly treasonous, I think they are starting to walk a fine line between social demonstration and treason. I am not saying that I disagree with the Occupy movements, well at least some of their grievances, but I am very disturbed by some of the rhetoric they are starting to use and the actions they are starting to take. What about you guys. Penny for your thoughts?

*I apologize if this is already a thread, but I did not see one on this particular topic.

**dogma**

Your link does not work for me.

Anyway, I'm not fond of the Occupy movement because:

A: They suck at protesting.

B: It seems like cheap anger, more than legitimate grievance.

C: Much of what they have said is unfounded; eg. "The bankers screwed us!" is not correct.

Its not treasonous though.

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:Your link does not work for me.

I apologize. Here is the full link: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/10/19/%E2%80%98occupy%E2%80%99-to-hold-national-assembly-in-philadelphia/

dogma wrote:Anyway, I'm not fond of the Occupy movement because:

I am quivering with anticipation to see this!

dogma wrote:A: They suck at protesting.

True story, but this is undoubtedly driven by their lack of leadership or organization. It seems their resistance to structure is quite possibly their greatest weakness.

dogma wrote:B: It seems like cheap anger, more than legitimate grievance.

Its hard to air legitimate grievance when they don't actually have a solidified list of problems that are within the confines of reality, such as: companies that receive government bailouts should not be giving bonuses to their executives.

dogma wrote:C: Much of what they have said is unfounded; eg. "The bankers screwed us!" is not correct.

Lets not think realistically here. The rhetoric they are chanting is really a reflection of the populist speeches and public mutterings of Democratic politicians. I am not trying to pick on one party here, but they have clearly made comments that can be very easily used to rouse populist anger for the wrong reasons.

dogma wrote:Its not treasonous though.

I am not saying the movement as a whole is treasonous. That would be a gross use of hyperbole, and just plain wrong. I was merely commenting on their push for things like a National Assembly, and using terms very similar to those used in revolutions against recognized government and how it could easily destabilize into something treasonous, especially with their particular knack for structure. It was my thoughts on the possibility, not necessarily the reality.

**CT GAMER**

JEB_Stuart wrote:I was recently reading a story on CBS' Philadelphia affiliate website and I was rather put off by a story that I read there. It was describing the goal of the "Occupy" movement, so called of the "99%", to hold a National Assembly in Philly next year. They used terms like "First American Revolution" and the like in describing their plans for the future. While thus far these actions aren't overtly treasonous, I think they are starting to walk a fine line between social demonstration and treason. I am not saying that I disagree with the Occupy movements, well at least some of their grievances, but I am very disturbed by some of the rhetoric they are starting to use and the actions they are starting to take. What about you guys. Penny for your thoughts?

*I apologize if this is already a thread, but I did not see one on this particular topic.

You are seriously disturbed by a small rabble of potsmokers, tree huggers, unemployed types and bored college kids hanging out in a park?

I think the 1% are far more disturbing and deserving of being put to fire and pitchfork. But yeah that is never gonna happen so relax...

**JEB_Stuart**

CT GAMER wrote:You are seriously disturbed by a small rabble of potsmokers, tree huggers, unemployed types and bored college kids hanging out in a park?
I think the 1% are far more disturbing and deserving of being put to fire and pitchfork. But yeah that is never gonna happen so relax...

I think you are exaggerating my level of concern. I merely found it disconcerting and worthy of discussion. Unlike Fraz I am not running to the nuclear bunker yet to grab every firearm I can humanly carry. Don't take postings on the internet so extremely. Admittedly the subtle nuance of spoken English is lost in translation on the internet. Incidentally, a small rabble can sometimes very easily tap into the unrest of a much larger element of society. Look at the Tea Part for example...

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:The rhetoric they are chanting is really a reflection of the populist speeches and public mutterings of Democratic politicians. I am not trying to pick on one party here, but they have clearly made comments that can be very easily used to rouse populist anger for the wrong reasons.

While I'm sure the majority of protesters vote Democrat, or don't vote (there's probably some Libertarians in there too), I wouldn't call it a Democratic protest. The Democrats have certainly done their share of rabble rousing, much as the GOP has, but much of what's being spouted by the OWS crowd is largely just anti-power.

Also, rhetoric only motivates people when they already sympathize with it, so its perhaps not fair to pin the blame on politicians alone.

**CT GAMER**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:You are seriously disturbed by a small rabble of potsmokers, tree huggers, unemployed types and bored college kids hanging out in a park?
I think the 1% are far more disturbing and deserving of being put to fire and pitchfork. But yeah that is never gonna happen so relax...
I think you are exaggerating my level of concern. I merely found it disconcerting and worthy of discussion. Unlike Fraz I am not running to the nuclear bunker yet to grab every firearm I can humanly carry. Don't take postings on the internet so extremely. Admittedly the subtle nuance of spoken English is lost in translation on the internet. Incidentally, a small rabble can sometimes very easily tap into the unrest of a much larger element of society. Look at the Tea Part for example...

The tea party are a joke and on about 14:58 of their fifteen minutes. This occupy movement will last until the summer music festival season when all the college kids head off to see whatever hipster band decides to reunite...

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:While I'm sure the majority of protesters vote Democrat, or don't vote (there's probably some Libertarians in there too), I wouldn't call it a Democratic protest.

Nor would I. I don't feel that I labelled it as such. It was just a comment on the similar populist statements that I am hearing from Capitol Hill Democrats.

dogma wrote:The Democrats have certainly done their share of rabble rousing, much as the GOP has, but much of what's being spouted by the OWS crowd is largely just anti-power.

Absolutely agreed. Hence their aversion to structure and organization?

dogma wrote:Also, rhetoric only motivates people when they already sympathize with it, so its perhaps not fair to pin the blame on politicians alone.

I wouldn't place blame solely on them, but part of it at least goes to them for their rhetoric, and their tolerance for certain levels of excess in "government owned" corporations.

**Albatross**

My question would be this, I guess: Under what set of circumstances can you see the Occupy movements taking up an armed struggle, and how likely is that to happen?

My answer would be 'I have no idea, and there is as close to zero probability of it happening as makes no difference'. Just my opinion. They can't even attempt to overthrow the US government without resorting to violence, and let's face it - the West is a comfortable place to live, even now. I can't imagine a sufficiently large number of people getting angry enough with the situation to enact some sort of revolutionary campaign.

This whole thing is just ennui writ large, as far as I can see.

Oh, and welcome back JEB! Dakka was the poorer for your absence.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Where's Orkeosaurus?

**sebster**

I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

It used to be the left muttering how the vague anger of the Tea Party offered no solutions, and the right saying solutions will grow once politicians listen to their voices. Now it's reversed.

It used to be the left muttering how dangerously close to treason much of what's said was, and the right telling people to settle down, that that was just angry rhetoric. Now it's reversed.

**malfred**

CT GAMER wrote:
The tea party are a joke and on about 14:58 of their fifteen minutes. This occupy movement will last until the summer music festival season when all the college kids head off to see whatever hipster band decides to reunite...

Lol.

Well at least there isn't an unholy union of tea party and occupy activists. Then
you'd have the fight to the right to bear arms against evil corporate banker
communists.

**chaos0xomega**

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:Its not treasonous though.
I am not saying the movement as a whole is treasonous. That would be a gross use of hyperbole, and just plain wrong. I was merely commenting on their push for things like a National Assembly, and using terms very similar to those used in revolutions against recognized government and how it could easily destabilize into something treasonous, especially with their particular knack for structure. It was my thoughts on the possibility, not necessarily the reality.

For someone who's screenname is the name of a famous Confederate general from the American Civil War, I find it kind of ironic that you're complaining about treason. In any case, this country was founded by acts of treason, and the founding fathers intended this exact sort of thing to be an element of our government and society.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

Besides that, one of the wonderful things about this country is that (theoretically) you can change the form of the government via a constitutional convention. All it takes is the state legislatures of 34 states to call for one. If enough people in our country are in support of an amendment to the Constitution, then they just have to vote in candidates to the state legislatures that support that agenda. There is no necessity for an armed rebellion. Granted, such an 'Article V' convention has never occurred in the history of this country, but hey, its an option.

The way I see it, only good can come from the rise of movements like the Tea Party and Occupy movement. If these populist movements evolve into new political parties, we might be able to finally move away from this ridiculous two party system we have, better yet, we might finally be able to abolish it (and political parties in general) and go back to the way this country was intended to function.

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:...we might finally be able to abolish it (and political parties in general) and go back to the way this country was intended to function.

I can count on one hand the number of democratic states that have functioned without political parties.

**chaos0xomega**

dogma wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:...we might finally be able to abolish it (and political parties in general) and go back to the way this country was intended to function.

I can count on one hand the number of democratic states that have functioned without political parties.

Thats because most democratic states have a parliamentary system that requires political parties in order to form a government and function. The US is not one of those nations, and was set up to function perfectly without the concept of a political party. Its in our best interest as a nation not to have political parties in any case. If politicians want to form informal coalitions thats one thing, but we need to put an end to voting for candidates based on party platforms, especially when we are limited to two parties that have effectively monopolized politics in this country (and really aren't significantly different enough to actually provide voters with anything real in the way of varied options).

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thats because most democratic states have a parliamentary system that requires political parties in order to form a government and function. The US is not one of those nations, and was set up to function perfectly without the concept of a political party.

And yet the Founders formed political parties, and behaved as one, largely, prior to and during the revolution.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its in our best interest as a nation not to have political parties in any case. If politicians want to form informal coalitions thats one thing, but we need to put an end to voting for candidates based on party platforms, especially when we are limited to two parties that have effectively monopolized politics in this country.

One follows from the other.

**Scrabb**

sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

It used to be the left muttering how the vague anger of the Tea Party offered no solutions, and the right saying solutions will grow once politicians listen to their voices. Now it's reversed.

It used to be the left muttering how dangerously close to treason much of what's said was, and the right telling people to settle down, that that was just angry rhetoric. Now it's reversed.

This. Perfect symmetry.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

I've been saying this since day one.

Of course, the true believers on either side hate to hear it.

**LordofHats**

Scrabb wrote:
sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

It used to be the left muttering how the vague anger of the Tea Party offered no solutions, and the right saying solutions will grow once politicians listen to their voices. Now it's reversed.

It used to be the left muttering how dangerously close to treason much of what's said was, and the right telling people to settle down, that that was just angry rhetoric. Now it's reversed.

This. Perfect symmetry.

Could it be, balance?

Avatar Roku would be pleased... maybe...

**sebster**

Monster Rain wrote:
sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

I've been saying this since day one.

Of course, the true believers on either side hate to hear it.

That's why saying it is so much fun!

**murdog**

One of the main points of this movement is non-violence, so I don't think armed revolution is in the cards.These are Americans who believe enough in the strength of their democracy that they intend to cause change without violence. It is not anti-American to want to change the system you live under, peacefully. c0m just mentioned how it would be possible to both change the system, and/or work within the system, and I'm sure this movement is working on both levels, so I think arguments like 'they can't do anything concrete' are maybe a little premature.

dogma, with all due respect, I have to ask,

dogma wrote:I'm not fond of the Occupy movement because:

A: They suck at protesting.

How so? They have managed to sustain and grow a protest in the financial heart of the US for over a month now.

dogma wrote:B: It seems like cheap anger, more than legitimate grievance.

In what way is it more cheap anger than legitimate grievance? People are losing their homes and jobs, millions of people without health insurance, meanwhile the political establishment, Wall Street and the Pentagon go on as if its business as usual. People see the money being poured into wars overseas and executives pockets, while around them their real security is deteriorates. Meanwhile the powers-that-be keep saying 'trust us, trust us'.

How long does one have to suffer before anger is legitimate? How many times do you express a grievance before doing it in anger is acceptable? This movement has drawn strength by encompassing many long standing grievances, as expressed by well-developed organizations that have pledged solidarity with it (environmental, unions, etc... I can be more specific if you like).

dogma wrote:C: Much of what they have said is unfounded; eg. "The bankers screwed us!" is not correct.

Isn't it tho? It seems to me that one of the most clear messages is that people think that they did. (Besides that, what else have they said that is unfounded?)

You're an American and a political scientist (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems from this forum that you follow current events. I do as well, though my specialization is military-diplomatic history, and so I don't have detailed knowledge of all the administrations. I genuinely want to know just what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks is going on down there, so I'm going to ask you to help me.

How much of this is accurate, in your opinion? A bit of Amy Goodman from democracynow.org interviewing a guy named William Black. (Full interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/19/former_financial_regulator_william_black_occupy).

AMY GOODMAN: ... Well, our first guest is one of the many people who have participated in Occupy Kansas City. William Black is a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, worked in the Reagan administration, and is author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. He is associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think has to happen now? And what does this have to do with the Occupy Wall Street protests that have expanded here in Kansas City and across the globe? There are more than a thousand demonstrations that have been held in the last weeks.

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, we have companion problems. We’ve got to stop this dynamic that’s producing recurrent, intensifying crises. I mean, this one has devastated the nation. The next one would probably be equivalent to the Great Depression. And part of that answer—but only part of it—is to hold the folks accountable, especially the most elite, who caused this crisis. And they did it through fraud, and they did it through fraud in what we call the "C-suites" —the CEOs, the COOs — so, the absolute top.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean by fraud?

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, I mean just what we say in the law: fraud is when you use deceit to steal something from someone. And so, the essence of fraud is, I get you to trust me, and then I betray that trust for gain. And as a result, there’s no more effective acid against destroying trust than fraud, particularly at the elite levels. And when you destroy trust, you destroy economies, families, democracies.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, you worked in the Reagan administration. Explain the trajectory of how we have fallen so far. Where do you feel it began?

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, it’s, you know, quite remarkable. It actually, of course, begins in the Carter administration with very substantial deregulation, although I would say of a better sort. I mean, most people don’t think trucking should be heavily regulated, and that’s the type of thing he deregulated. By the Reagan administration, they were—deregulate everything, at the worst possible circumstances, when you had no one looking. And the result was a disaster. It was the savings and loan crisis, at least the second phase of it. And if it had not been contained, it would have been at least a trillion-dollar crisis.

It was contained despite the Reagan administration, and despite a lot of prominent Democrats, as well, who were very heavily in the same camp. So we acted against the wishes of the administration, against the wishes—a majority of the House co-sponsored a resolution saying don’t reregulate—the Keating Five—many people remember those five senators—most of the media, what the political scientists considered the third most powerful trade association in America. And by the way, that’s why I have a message of hope. If we could succeed in those circumstances, it’s far easier to succeed now.

AMY GOODMAN: And how would these powerful financial entities be held accountable? What exactly should happen?

WILLIAM BLACK: It all starts with the regulators, which is why it’s all not started here, because we have, of course, the wrecking crew, Bush’s wrecking crew, what Tom Frank called them, in charge, and they stopped making criminal referrals. So our agency, in the savings and loan crisis, made over 10,000 criminal referrals to the FBI. That same agency, in this crisis, made zero criminal referrals. If you don’t get people pointing the way and pointing to the top of the organization, you don’t get effective prosecutions. So, in the peak of the savings and loan crisis, we had a thousand FBI agents. This crisis has losses 70 times larger than the savings and loan crisis. And the savings and loan crisis, when it happened, was considered the largest financial scandal in U.S. history. So we’re now 70 times worse. And as recently as 2007, we had 120 FBI agents—one-eighth as many FBI agents for a crisis 70 times larger. And they looked not at the big folks, but almost exclusively at the little folks.

AMY GOODMAN: William Black, you mentioned Bush’s wrecking crew, but we live in the time of President Obama.

WILLIAM BLACK: And we’ve been living for some years in the time of President Obama, and he has done absolutely nothing to reestablish the criminal referral process. And as a result, there are virtually no prosecutions of any elites.

When people tell you this crisis couldn’t have been stopped—I’ll give you two simple things. First, these liars’ loans that caused this crisis—and it’s overwhelmingly lenders that put the lie in liars’ loans—they were big in 1990 and 1991. We killed them by regular regulatory means and stopped a crisis for a decade. Our successors—I mean, how hard is it to figure out that something called a "liar’s loan" shouldn’t be allowed? This was not tough.

The second thing is, the FBI warned, in open testimony in the House of Representatives, picked up by the national media, in September 2004, that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud and predicted it would cause a financial crisis—their exact words. And the regulators did nothing, because you had the Alan Greenspans of the world and the Harvey Pitts of the world, who were selected because they were the leading opponents of effective regulation in America. Well, you know, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of regulatory failure, and then turn around and say, "Well, you can’t trust the government. It fails."

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the message of Occupy Wall Street. In the corporate media, in the mainstream media, there is a lot of questioning, not so much of the people themselves, because they don’t usually have them into their studios, but a lot of questioning along the lines of "What do these people want? There’s no clear message."

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, first, of course, I don’t speak for that movement, and indeed they don’t have official spokespersons with clear plans. So that part is true. They think of that as one of the great strengths of democracy now, right? That things bubble up, and they have different ideas. However, if you look, not just nationwide, but worldwide, you will see some pretty consistent themes developing. And those themes include: we have to deal with the systemically dangerous institutions, the 20 biggest banks that the administration is saying are ticking time bombs, that as soon as one of them fails, we go back into a global crisis. Well, we should fix that. Right? There’s no reason to have institutions that large. That’s a theme. That accountability is a theme, that we should keep—put these felons in prison, and there’s no action on that. That we should get jobs now, and that we should deal with the foreclosure crisis. So those are four very common themes that you can see in virtually any of these protest sites. And they have asked me, for example, to come to New York to talk about some of these things. So, I think, over time, you won’t necessarily have some grand written agenda, but you’ll have, as I say, increasing consensus. And it’s a very broad consensus. It’s not left, it’s not right; it’s not Republican, it’s not Democrat.

What do you think? Sorry about the length everyone...

Zero criminal referrals.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

I've been saying this since day one.

Of course, the true believers on either side hate to hear it.

That's why saying it is so much fun!

I don't want to do anything so trite as to post some sort of silly .gif, but I would sincerely like to brofist with sebster right now.

**SilverMK2**

Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

**dogma**

murdog wrote:
How so? They have managed to sustain and grow a protest in the financial heart of the US for over a month now.

No one has made any attempt at internally policing the protest, no one has made any attempt at speaking in a leadership capacity for the movement, no one has sacrificed anything of significance for the movement.

murdog wrote:
In what way is it more cheap anger than legitimate grievance? People are losing their homes and jobs, millions of people without health insurance, meanwhile the political establishment, Wall Street and the Pentagon go on as if its business as usual. People see the money being poured into wars overseas and executives pockets, while around them their real security is deteriorates. Meanwhile the powers-that-be keep saying 'trust us, trust us'.

It is business as usual, first off. And second, of course they're telling you to trust them, no one (competent) with authority would ever say "Don't trust me." (unless he was using the phrase as a rhetorical device) to someone over whom he had overt authority.

Anyway, its cheap anger due to its unfocused nature. That may change, but I see no indication of such a trend.

murdog wrote:
How long does one have to suffer before anger is legitimate?

Suffer?

Peons in North Korea suffer, people who overstate the cost of their laptops don't. That's an unfair generalization, perhaps, but it seems to capture the nature of the OWS protests. Keep in mind that I say this as a guy who went to one of the most liberal colleges in the United States.

Alternatively, a friend of mine once noted how politics tend to increase in volatility as the severity of consequences decrease.

murdog wrote:
How many times do you express a grievance before doing it in anger is acceptable?

The number of times X is said has no bearing on its legitimacy. Saying "Cheesecake has ruined the world!" 8.5 million times will not make it any more legitimate.

murdog wrote:
Isn't it tho? It seems to me that one of the most clear messages is that people think that they did.

Its unfounded because their claim is false, and no matter how many people believe it to be true, it will still be false.

Granted, I take "screwed" to imply a conscious attempt to injure or, well, you know.

murdog wrote:
(Besides that, what else have they said that is unfounded?)

Jews control the world?

In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure we can pin anything down other than the above as there is no clear message besides "The wealthy screwed us!" (not surprising given the Arab Spring inspiration) and "Angry!"

murdog wrote:
You're an American and a political scientist (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems from this forum that you follow current events. I do as well, though my specialization is military-diplomatic history, and so I don't have detailed knowledge of all the administrations. I genuinely want to know just what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks is going on down there, so I'm going to ask you to help me.

For the most part, lots of liberal college kids, and professional protesters, have decided that an Adbusters campaign was worth acting on. To a lesser extent, the american public has expressed support, though it seems that the support is greater than that which lifted the Tea Party.

Basically, cats be angry.

The cited interview wrote:
And part of that answer—but only part of it—is to hold the folks accountable, especially the most elite, who caused this crisis.

I'm going to stop here and rephrase for the purpose of illustration. What senor Black really meant to say was:

"And part of the answer-but only part of it-is to hold the folks accountable, especially the most elite, who we believe to have caused this crisis."

In other words, let us scapegoat as our forefathers did.

**Kilkrazy**

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/

How dare you suggest such a thing *raises fist in patriotic rage*

I actually wonder how much that possibility has been discussed by Americans to be honest. I'm not a Revolution guy so I'm not familiar with the scholarship on it round my side of the pond. In that state, I've noticed we usually just take for granted that we were totally awesome in 1776 and could do no wrong

**sebster**

murdog wrote:How so? They have managed to sustain and grow a protest in the financial heart of the US for over a month now.

They have to turn out and vote. They have to commit to a political party, and stay with that political party not just for right now while they're a little bit angry, not just for the next election, but for the decades it takes to enact meaningful reform. They need to make their numbers felt, and in doing so they will being to influence the political values of that political party.

A protest is a release of political frustration, it is not in and of itself a means to anything.

Thanks for the article, by the way. It was a nice read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't want to do anything so trite as to post some sort of silly .gif, but I would sincerely like to brofist with sebster right now.

It does seem to fit the moment, doesn't it?

**murdog**

dogma wrote: No one has made any attempt at internally policing the protest, no one has made any attempt at speaking in a leadership capacity for the movement, no one has sacrificed anything of significance for the movement.

This all seems a little dubious, given the numbers involved. What do you mean by internal policing? Why do they need a leader at this point? I'd also be inclined to believe there have been personal sacrifices, and you could even say that many who have come down there to show support have done so because they have made sacrifices for this system already - I mean, we all have and do, right? - and they have not been satisfied with the results.

dogma wrote: It is business as usual, first off.

Is it though? Economy down, unemployment up, divided politics, wars around the globe, shifting geopolitics, changing climate, etc..., not to mention a tide of democratic movements around the world demanding change. We'll have to agree to disagree i guess.

dogma wrote: And second, of course they're telling you to trust them, no one (competent) with authority would ever say "Don't trust me." (unless he was using the phrase as a rhetorical device) to someone over whom he had overt authority.

Obviously. I meant that some people are starting to wake up to the lies, while others continue to spin the dream.

dogma wrote:Anyway, its cheap anger due to its unfocused nature. That may change, but I see no indication of such a trend.

And if it does, will your opinion change?

dogma wrote:
murdog wrote:
How long does one have to suffer before anger is legitimate?

Suffer?

Peons in North Korea suffer, people who overstate the cost of their laptops don't. That's an unfair generalization, perhaps, but it seems to capture the nature of the OWS protests. Keep in mind that I say this as a guy who went to one of the most liberal colleges in the United States.

Alternatively, a friend of mine once noted how politics tend to increase in volatility as the severity of consequences decrease.

That is an unfair generalization, and does not capture the nature of the OWS protests. Thousands have gone down there because they have experienced real suffering under this system. I think you dismiss too easily the situation of many of your fellows, and also how it connects to you. I'm not sure your friends statement is supported by recent politics in the middle east, unless you think that revolution is not politics...

dogma wrote:
murdog wrote:
How many times do you express a grievance before doing it in anger is acceptable?

The number of times X is said has no bearing on its legitimacy. Saying "Cheesecake has ruined the world!" 8.5 million times will not make it any more legitimate.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about volume. I'm talking about tone. Anger is often grounded in grievance. Does expressing grievance with anger delegitimize it?

dogma wrote:Its unfounded because their claim is false, and no matter how many people believe it to be true, it will still be false.

So are you saying that you believe that Wall Street has behaved within the scope of the law, or at least that any criminal wrongdoing has been aptly investigated and prosecuted? That someone like William Black from that interview has no idea what he's talking about? I really don't know for sure, but I'm trying to find out.

dogma wrote:For the most part, lots of liberal college kids, and professional protesters, have decided that an Adbusters campaign was worth acting on. To a lesser extent, the american public has expressed support, though it seems that the support is greater than that which lifted the Tea Party.

Basically, cats be angry.

I actually wanted help with the accuracy of the interviewee, but that is a good honest look at OWS. To me the real compelling part has been that this core have had daily support, including individuals but also unions and community organizations of New York City that have come down and swelled the numbers. And what do you think will happen to it, do you think there will/has been positive results?

dogma wrote:In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure we can pin anything down other than the above as there is no clear message besides "The wealthy screwed us!" (not surprising given the Arab Spring inspiration) and "Angry!"

I'm too tired tonight, but I'll try to find time to get some links to coherent voices for you. Maybe time for a new thread on this anyways.

**Frazzled**

JEB_Stuart wrote:I was recently reading a story on CBS' Philadelphia affiliate website and I was rather put off by a story that I read there. It was describing the goal of the "Occupy" movement, so called of the "99%", to hold a National Assembly in Philly next year. They used terms like "First American Revolution" and the like in describing their plans for the future. While thus far these actions aren't overtly treasonous, I think they are starting to walk a fine line between social demonstration and treason. I am not saying that I disagree with the Occupy movements, well at least some of their grievances, but I am very disturbed by some of the rhetoric they are starting to use and the actions they are starting to take. What about you guys. Penny for your thoughts?

*I apologize if this is already a thread, but I did not see one on this particular topic.

Don't worry. I saw them yesterday. The circling homeless guys would exterminate them over a good can of sterno if given the chance.

I do think we're on the edge though. This

has to get better, or bad things will happen. The world is ripe for a whole bunch of "isms."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Anyway, I'm not fond of the Occupy movement because:

A: They suck at protesting.

Agreed. Their image is poor. be polite and focused or at least be hawt like all the college gal protests when I was in college.

B: It seems like cheap anger, more than legitimate grievance.

There are massively legitimate issues there, but IPOD carrying professional protestors aren't the ones to give it. Put 500,000 unemployed steel workers on the march and I'll respect that. If its in town I'll join it.

C: Much of what they have said is unfounded; eg. "The bankers screwed us!" is not correct.

There is some truth to it to many of the statements, but denouncing the evil "they" as the bearer of all your evils does nothing but smack of Brownshirt LITE.

Its not treasonous though.

Agreed. Smelly though. Don't stand down wind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote: Unlike Fraz I am not running to the nuclear bunker yet to grab every firearm I can humanly carry.

What? its not Armageddon, its just the UPS guy? Shucks (tosses rucksacks back into the closet that land with a metal thud)

**biccat**

sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

False equivalence. The Tea Party is significantly different from the Occupy protest. The only similarity between the two is that they're both protests.

The tea party didn't threaten anyone, they always cooperated with the police, rarely got arrested, and even got permits for their gatherings. The tea party is (vastly) about change by internal means. The occupy protests, on the other hand, engage in regular lawlessness, threaten others, and advocate external change as a means of achieving "social justice."

To equate the two is to fail to understand either one.

Plus, the media loves the occupy protest movement. They go out of their way to avoid mentioning their racist and violent rhetoric. Contra the tea party.

Albatross wrote:My question would be this, I guess: Under what set of circumstances can you see the Occupy movements taking up an armed struggle, and how likely is that to happen?

Probably pretty low. Liberl weenies like those that visit the occupy protests have an almost allergic reaction to even the mention of firearms.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20/declaration-independence-was-illegal-grounds-for-treason-british-lawyers-say/

How dare you suggest such a thing *raises fist in patriotic rage*

I actually wonder how much that possibility has been discussed by Americans to be honest. I'm not a Revolution guy so I'm not familiar with the scholarship on it round my side of the pond. In that state, I've noticed we usually just take for granted that we were totally awesome in 1776 and could do no wrong

Toronaga of the Dutch fighting to free themselves of the Spanish "You're rebelling against your rightful lord."
Blackthorne "not if we win."