Friday, November 25, 2011

In response 11-25-2011

In response to Lavarrock:

".....These are demands that are currently being voting on democratically by the people as opposed to in backroom deals with corporations....."

CORRECTION: These are "demands" being voted on FOR the masses by a select privileged few in the lobby of the Deutshce Bank Building (60 Wall Street). But at least you're admitting that after damn near 3 months, there's still no cohesive demand structure that average people can rally behind.

"....Occupy actions are taking place in over 100 US cities. Which is quite impressive for a young, growing movement...."

Significantly big drop from the 2000 number you threw out there, isn't it? Now how many are those cities are in Red States? Find that out for me.

"....Even if the movement wasn’t popular it wouldn’t make any difference. The Civil Rights movement was extremely unpopular in America when it arose...."

The only similarity between the Civil Rights movement and "Occupy" is that they stated getting press coverage when brutality started to happen and sympathy was gained. All the "support" Occupy enjoyed was majorly based on sympathy to their "cause"

The biggest differences (and the key factors) between the Civil Rights Movement is that people knew exactly what they were fighting for.

They had leaders (or at least credible representatives).

And MOST IMPORTANTLY........they worked with the politicians in Washington at the time.

"....The mere fact that Obama and the democrats are trying to co-opt the movement as much as the Republicans did the Tea Party shows just how worried they are....."

And now Tea Partiers have pull and influence in Washington today. You have a problem with Occupiers having that same sort of pull and influence.....why exactly?

"....Switching to a credit union and fraudulent bank charges were some of the things OWS has been preaching since day one....."

Then you need to have a talk with Congressman Brad Miller, who seems to deserve a little more credit than OWS on this:

"....After BofA announced the fees, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) introduced legislation urging consumers to move their deposits from BofA to smaller, more consumer-friendly institutions. Miller's move, not surprisingly, prompted outrage from big banks. "Great, now we have a member of Congress encouraging a run on a major U.S. bank," one bank lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said at the time....." LINK

And by your own logic, the president deserves, at least, as much credit as OWS on the debit card issue.

(YES, I'm using HuffPost since you like it so much) ;)

"...Also, considering that JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD and then a couple hours later the NYPD arrested 400 protesters proves that they are obviously influencing someone...."

Assuming that's true, how does that prove that OWS had any significant influence on BofA changing their minds on the $5 debit card fee?

"...Read the actual article. Not just the title...."

I did read it, and from what I gather Van Jones' only crime is that he's a democrat, he supports the president, and he wants people to vote. In other words, he's like tens of million of people in this country. Tens of million of people who evidently can't join the little social club that is the Occupy movement. If that's the case, they don't represent 99% of anybody

No comments: