Originally posted by rabidrabbit
Are you under the impression they are protesting Wall Street to make Wall Street change on their own?
Because I think it is pretty obvious the POINT is to draw attention to the fact that Wall Street CONTROLS Washington. As noted previously, Obama has
numerous ties to Wall Street donors. So do both of the major parties.
I think the protest ought to be directed at the politicians in DC because THEY are the ones who will have to shake the Wall Street money (I meant
'monkey' but the typo works - I think I'll keep it!) off their back. targeting DC and the politicians and saying "get clean or here's your pink slip"
would seem to me to have more of a chance of taking effect.
Wall Street CAN'T control Washington without the consent of Washington. I feel that is where the ire should be directed and made felt. I have to
wonder WHY it's being directed at Wall Street instead. I have a theory about that, but have already written about it elsewhere at ATS.
It's an interesting theory. But I really dont follow your line of thinking. Politicians arent concerned with a protest unless its in DC? How so? How
does the location change the message?
No, but changing the immediate target changes the immediate focus. If DC is the real target, all this does is provide a deflection that may cause a
riccochet. A riccochet may hit the target, but it's not likely to. I was actually hit by a riccochet bullet one time, and by the time if got to me, it
had lost all it's energy, Felt like someone tapping me on the shoulder rather than being hit with a ball peen hammer. Sorry for the militarisitc
analogy, but I think it's an apt illustration. Aim for the target, so you don't lose the momentum in the interim. No deflections.
Again, you seem like you are criticizing them out-of-hand, even though you admit you agree with their sentiment when it comes down to specifics. I
hope you attend your local Occupy rally and can express these ideals with the clarity and conviction you present them here.
I'm not criticizing the sentiment of the protestors themselves. I think their heart is in the right place, but they are being aimed wrong.
I'll be working 15 hours the day it kicks off here, and for the next couple of days after that, but if it's still going on the following Tuesday, it's
likely I'll wander down and meander among the crowd interacting as the opportunity presents itself. The planning meeting here alone evidently had
around 200 attendees, and checking another thread here for the actual protest in Cleveland, it seems the protest there only has around 200. Like I
said before, though, we have 6 or so colleges in the immediate area, so I expect there will be a fair sized crowd at the protest here.
Actually, being somewhat familiar with Cleveland, I'm sort of shocked that the turnout wasn't bigger there. there's still time to build, I reckon.
Where do you think it 'came from'? As I noted, the original idea appears to have come from a page in adbusters. Are you aware of some specific damning
details of the origins of this protest you would care to share with the group?
Yes, the original ad came from Adbusters, oddly, perhaps, when that was released, websites were already set up and ready to go, and now they are
trying (at least here at ATS) to make it look like it was just a nebulous idea in a blog, rather than an already fully-formed plan.
Some are speculating as to the original source of the money for the setup, but I'll leave that to them - they are better at ferreting out those sorts
of details than I. All I can say with conviction is that a simple Whois search will demonstrate that infrastructure was already in place when the idea
was born, seemingly out of nowhere. It doesn't appear to me to have been spontaneous - it appears to have been more of a pre-planned operation.
is a link to the OP in a thread about the Whois information, and
is a link to one of my posts laying out where I think the grand plan
Note that I differentiate between the protestors themselves and the people behind the curtain.
edit on 2011/10/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)