In retrospect, the Occupy movement totally succeeded.

[Devout Pessimist]

Thomas Frank on why Occupy Failed:

How theory met practice . . . and drove it absolutely crazy

A while later I happened to watch an online video of an Occupy panel discussion held at a bookstore in New York; at some point in the recording, a panelist objected to the way protesters had of saying they were

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

^^ I agree with all of that and the fact that Occupy Wall Street got hi-jacked by conspiracy theorist and people who had NO REAL solutions to solve problems. The few who did have problems just summed up that the Government should control everything or that EVERYTHING should be regulated or that the 'workers' should own everything.

There are Real politicians out there who are campaigning for minimum wage raises. In addition, there are many REAL intelligent academics/economists who denounced the conspiracy wings of the Occupy Movement but acknowledged the real issues that Wall Street caused.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

. I was less trying to engage you and more trying to use your contribution as a spring board for a point that might be food for thought to others.

You succeeded.
Thanks.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

yea and everyone thought ron paul had a very real chance of getting elected in the last couple early election seasons. that man has zero chance in hell of winning

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

When science develops the cyber-helmet that can instantly transform your great ideas into actual, finished products and services this statement will be (more or less) true. Until then, it can only be called the product of a childlike mind.

You seem to be confusing "intelligence" with "imagination". Anyone can just make something up, the intelligent (in this context) have the ability to transform an idea into reality. The fact that you can't comprehend (or choose not to) how individual human intelligence is the source of all wealth, and then decided that an insult is a replacement for a retort, shows that you're not examining this issue in any adult sense.

That was an interesting back and forth you had with yourself. Thanks.

I know from previous exchanges that your attempts to defend your positions are exercises in circular reasoning. You didn't understand what I posted in reply to you (because it had absolutely nothing to do with who is or is not any more or less "greedy")

Actually, you initiated that conversation when you mentioned "morality". Things such a greed fall under the moral spectrum. Now you have to minimize the impact of my statement in any way you can because it gets to the very heart of the false morality of anyone who wants to redistribute the wealth of others in the name of false altruism. That's why you feel the need to turn to insults rather than formulating any kind of retort to my arguments/statements.

and that's not surprising. I was less trying to engage you and more trying to use your contribution as a spring board for a point that might be food for thought to others.

I'm perfectly aware of your intention, I just didn't care. Have you noted that it seems that only the snarky leftists on this thread seem to agree with your....... lets just call them words (because no argument or retort has been presented on your part)

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

It was. I appreciated it. I will pay closer attention to your posts in the future as well.

You succeeded.
Thanks.

Ultra would have to make some form of argument first. But if you truly find "food for thought" in a post filled with snark and insults and no substance, I guess have at it. Are either of you capable of explaining what that "food for thought" might have been? It's ok, I'll wait.

 

[panamaican]

No one said the topic wasn't being discussed or there weren't articles on it.

I personally discussed this in threads in the War Room prior to it.

What I'm saying is that it wasn't a hot button issue or on the minds of average everyday Americans.

It wasn't being played daily on mainstream network news - ABC, Fox, CBS during primetime.

After OWS happened, it was on the local news constantly.




You're changing the goalposts of your argument.

We are not talking about who the PROTESTERS were.

We are talking about WHEN income inequality and the the other issues of OWS became a MAINSTREAM issue with AVERAGE, everyday people.

Those are two completely different things. Nice try though.

Again - the issue was already on the news. The point of the links were to show that the subject was already being covered. It was being covered in all of it's facets. I don't have the time to go through video from 5 years ago to find news clips from a mainstream tv channel.

I think you're confusing coverage of OWS with coverage of wealth/income inequality. Wealth/income inequality was already being covered on the news. OWS didn't put the subject on the news. OWS literally took a subject that average people were already complaining about and then organized a movement around it.

That's the part that you're essentially ignoring. All those OWS people camping out protesting - where do you think they heard about wealth inequality from? How did they learn about the upper 1% reaping outsized gains? From the news. :wink:

Then someone organized the existing sentiment into a public protest. There would have been no public protest if the issue wasn't already a hot button topic. Understand?

PBS in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIg0RSmGr-c
Obama discussing the issue prior to his first election: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Washington Post article from 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101305004.html

The conversation was already well under way before OWS showed up. They didn't create it, they didn't make it a mainstream issue for the average American.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Ultra would have to make some form of argument first. But if you truly find "food for thought" in a post filled with snark and insults and no substance, I guess have at it. Are either of you capable of explaining what that "food for thought" might have been? It's ok, I'll wait.

I would try to explain, but given the level of comprehension on display in your response above this one, I have to assume you wouldn't understand.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Ultra would have to make some form of argument first. But if you truly find "food for thought" in a post filled with snark and insults and no substance, I guess have at it. Are either of you capable of explaining what that "food for thought" might have been? It's ok, I'll wait.

For the record OWS was left-libertarian in origin.



And where did that "someone else's" money come from in the first place if not, as is often the case, from the productivity of the workers themselves? Perhaps that "someone" else is siphoning off others' money via the wage system, not too mention massive tax breaks for the wealthy and billions in bailouts for large companies. You don't seem too bothered by that.

His post was mostly substance, he did include a few insults but you absolutely deserve to be insulted and laughed at.

You said "individual human intelligence is the source of all wealth" (which is absurd, Floyd Mayweather can't even read, for example, he punches people in the face for a living) and then went on to claim that poor people are greedy and rich people are just a better class of human.

Ultra explained, in very simple terms, how our system actually works. You chose to ignore that and continue on your merry way. You should read some Adam Smith and the labour theory of value, it's relevant to this discussion.

Thomas Frank on why Occupy Failed:

Thomas Frank....YOU'RE quoting Thomas Frank. The guy who wrote "what's the matter with Kansas"

Have you ever read that book? He shreds every argument or stance you've ever taken in the War Room.

The irony here is delicious.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

For the record OWS was left-libertarian in origin.

That's debatable, what's less debatable is how the movement ended up, far more socialist or communist (depending on the mood that day).

And where did that "someone else's" money come from in the first place

All wealth comes from an individual human intelligence. Someone that discovers a better or new product/way or meeting the needs or desires of others. This must first be discovered by a human intelligence. At that point it's all a matter of bringing that discovery into reality. At this point in the process, many people (but not all) often hire others to help with bringing the idea/discovery into reality, but make no mistake, all the subsequent wealth that is created was sourced by a single human intelligence.

if not, as is often the case, from the productivity of the workers themselves? Perhaps that "someone" else is siphoning off others' money via the wage system,

No, without human intelligence guiding your labor, the sum of your value is what the primitive hunter/gatherer was able to call the days bounty. Someone else discovered the job that the laborer now occupies, they occupy it because the one who discovered the task that now pays the laborer, has other tasks/products/services to discover/invent.

not too mention massive tax breaks for the wealthy

I got no problem with lower taxes.

and billions in bailouts for large companies.

What your describing isn't capitalism, but something called Mercantilism (or as I call it "Crapitilism" because it's the worst merger or state and corporate power, the worst of both worlds if-you-will)

mer

 

[ShadowRun]

It was about non motivated , self entitled jelious ppl

 

[ultramanhyata]

Actually, you initiated that conversation when you mentioned "morality". Things such a greed fall under the moral spectrum. Now you have to minimize the impact of my statement in any way you can because it gets to the very heart of the false morality of anyone who wants to redistribute the wealth of others in the name of false altruism.

This line goes to the heart of your worldview's problem which, as I said, is circular reasoning. My first post was an attempt to show you that how you define the wealth of "others" and how you define "redistribute" is all a product of the economic system you champion. You're incapable of processing that, much less stating a basis upon which my claim either is or isn't true.

All you're arguing is that if I were to embrace the moral boundaries of your worldview I would see that crossing those boundaries is immoral. Which is true. But also entirely meaningless.

That's why you feel the need to turn to insults rather than formulating any kind of retort to my arguments/statements.

The retort I made against your position was pointing out that your moral arguments are tautological. It is impossible to move beyond that square unless you can comprehend and directly engage with that rebuttal.

I'm perfectly aware of your intention, I just didn't care. Have you noted that it seems that only the snarky leftists on this thread seem to agree with your....... lets just call them words (because no argument or retort has been presented on your part)

You're confusing my second post with my first post. The first one is the one others were referencing. It wasn't "snarky".

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I would try to explain, but given the level of comprehension on display in your response above this one, I have to assume you wouldn't understand.

So you're unable to explain what that "food for thought" was. Got ya. (Hint: because there was no substance in a post full of insults, you just wanted to disagree with what I said without having to actually put forth any kind of argument. That's coming from a place of emotion, not reason or logic).

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me to what wonderful "food for thought" you derived from ultras post...

 

[Hog-train]

Again - the issue was already on the news. The point of the links were to show that the subject was already being covered. It was being covered in all of it's facets. I don't have the time to go through video from 5 years ago to find news clips from a mainstream tv channel.

I think you're confusing coverage of OWS with coverage of wealth/income inequality. Wealth/income inequality was already being covered on the news. OWS didn't put the subject on the news. OWS literally took a subject that average people were already complaining about and then organized a movement around it.

That's the part that you're essentially ignoring. All those OWS people camping out protesting - where do you think they heard about wealth inequality from? How did they learn about the upper 1% reaping outsized gains? From the news. :wink:

Then someone organized the existing sentiment into a public protest. There would have been no public protest if the issue wasn't already a hot button topic. Understand?

I understand what you are saying - you don't need to articulate it multiple times. I'm simply disagreeing.

And since this is basically a subjective judgment call, it's kind of hard to prove one way or the other.

Showing articles of the issue being discussed doesn't mean mean anything. No one said it wasn't an issue being discussed. People have been writing articles on the issue since the 70's.

It's just - I do not think income inequality was a mainstream issue that everybody was paying attention to.

I know correlation doesn't always imply causation- but it's awfully convenient then that right after we had the Wall Street protests, we had similar protests all over the country. It was a catalyst.

And then this spread into massive protests in countries like Spain and Greece, where huge numbers of young people are unemployed.

So no- I completely disagree that the OWS protests had no effect. It made the general working public more aware of the issue and the level of discontent people have.

 

[lilelvis]

No, there is only one source of all wealth, individual human intelligence.


Only a coercive economic system, not a voluntary one.



No, I don't like people initiating force against peaceful people to steal their property in the name of a false altruism. When in reality the goal is self enrichment at the expense of others.



The reason you feel the need to minimize the moral argument I'm making, is because it gets to the very heart of all the supposedly "moral" arguments of those who support forced wealth redistribution. If the billionaire is somehow "immoral" or "greedy" for keeping the wealth that he/she accumulated over their lifetime (by invention, sales, production, service, inheritance, gifting, speculating, hedging, and whatever other ways a wealth is accumulated, keep in mind an individual human intelligence was required to be the source of any of the forms of accumulation listed or could be listed), what makes the socialist redistributors and all they pay off with others money, any less greedy when they decide to take and receive the wealth of others?

The answer you wish to avoid is: The socialist redistributor is not only just as greedy as the billionaire, the socialist redistributor is actually MORE GREEDY than the billionaire. The redistributor desires what he/she did not earn and very very likely could not earn themselves. They think stealing the wealth of another will somehow make them equal to the ones who created it.

Whew! I hope you know that your a bad, BAD person.

 

[lilelvis]

Generalize much?

That's like saying all conservative voters are inbred Bible thumpers.

I have a job, pay taxes, watch football, play fantasy, not a hipster and live like any other person in NYC.

Yet I support many of Bernie Sanders stances - the most important of which - he wants to get money$$$ out of politics.

That is the #1 problem with the country. The undue influence of money in politics- doesn't matter what party you are. Nothing will be fixed until that issue is resolved.

Congressional term limits wouldn't hurt either.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

So you're unable to explain what that "food for thought" was. Got ya. (Hint: because there was no substance in a post full of insults, you just wanted to disagree with what I said without having to actually put forth any kind of argument. That's coming from a place of emotion, not reason or logic).

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me to what wonderful "food for thought" you derived from ultras post...

You said something this stupid:

You seem to be confusing "intelligence" with "imagination". Anyone can just make something up, the intelligent (in this context) have the ability to transform an idea into reality. The fact that you can't comprehend (or choose not to) how individual human intelligence is the source of all wealth, and then decided that an insult is a replacement for a retort, shows that you're not examining this issue in any adult sense.

So your opinion on whether or not I can elaborate on the provided "food for thought" is really unimportant to me.
Especially when you're meant to be an adult, but you're using schoolyard taunting tactics to drag me into an argument that you have no intention of understanding.