Anti-OWS threads reach for everything they can to denouce the movement.

page: 22
48
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree
 




Do me a favor. The next time you go to post something scroll to the top of the page and read what it says.
Deny Ignorance......Please. I didn't join ATS to see this crap. Isn't the Occupy Movement at heart something we all wanted? I wanted something like this to happen BADLY. I can tell you, when I got into "conspiracy theories/fact" I wanted The People to take to the streets in the worst way. I wanted us, as a people, to be united and fight for whats right. The only thing I think that would improve the Movement is if the focus was on the Federal Reserve. Everything, We the People, denounce stems from the Federal Reserve. They are the 4th branch of government that doesn't adhere to checks and balances.


Clap, Clap, Clap!!! I too wanted this to happen, I wanted people to take to the streets and demand justice. These Bankers, and their Central Cartel have us prisoners, and they keep stuffing their off shore bank accounts while We the People fight over scraps, and try to scrape a living from nothing. I live in Southern Ohio. Our jobs all went some place else. I see the people walking the roads, looking for enough soda cans to be able to eat that night. I see people selling their meds so they can buy gasoline, and food. I see little kids with no coats, and flip flops in November. I see people walking on every road.

We the People have sat idly by while the Banks took all of our money. First they took our Gold, and gave us a paper fiat dollar, then allowed us to have everything we wanted for awhile, then introduced easy credit, and got us all in debt. The "Deficit" they talk about? It's Interest on the money we have already spent. Is this fair?

Thomas Jefferson once said:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
(Thomas Jefferson: The Debate Over The Re-charter Of The Bank Bill, 1809)


545 People Responsible for America's Woes by Charley Reese Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

www.barefootsworld.net...

Our Enemy, The State

The Greatest Robbery of America The History of America’s Money System

The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

The Sad Story Of The Privately Owned Federal Reserve Bank

God, Gold, the Fed and Capitulation

Decades of U.S. Corruption And Series of Resulting American Tragedies

Nightmare in Indonesia: The Roots of the Bush-Cheney's Oil Government




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Drezden
I refer you to this video which shows the protestors yelling (denouncing), and physically pulling the unruly protestors away from the man.


That video actually does more harm than good for your argument.


And then it was denounced later by those that found out.


As it should be.
It demonstrates the lack of a cohesive message and lack of leadership.


That video is the worst/violent/aggressive OWS has been. In the video no one was hurt, the protestors vocally and physically denounce the actions of that very small handful of people who were vandalizing and harassing. Oakland has had more negative OWS moments than any other city. I can watch a video of a U.S. soldier throwing a puppy or shooting a civilian.. does that mean I believe U.S. soldiers as a whole are terrorists, violent and cruel? No I don't.. but with the poor logic you use, that connection could easily be made.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Who on ATS is speaking on behalf of OWS? I haven't seen anyone do that? As you've pointed out it is leaderless, so those that are speaking on behalf of OWS, especially on ATS..


Yet, YOU and others here are attempting that very thing, by posting what is or isn't the movements cause, stance and beliefs...


Right?


edit on 20-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
That video is the worst/violent/aggressive OWS has been. In the video no one was hurt, the protestors vocally and physically denounce the actions of that very small handful of people who were vandalizing and harassing. Oakland has had more negative OWS moments than any other city.


You're the one who posted it and now you're trying to dismiss it



I can watch a video of a U.S. soldier throwing a puppy or shooting a civilian.. does that mean I believe U.S. soldiers as a whole are terrorists, violent and cruel? No I don't..


No and neither do I believe it represents the whole either but like the instances you brought up about puppies and civilians. Those were discussed to death and was the subject of much debate here at ATS.



but with the poor logic you use, that connection could easily be made.


I'll just let that sit there as example of your tactics.
edit on 20-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yet, YOU and others here are attempting that very thing, by posting what is or isn't the movements cause, stance and beliefs...


Right?




No what I'm saying is fact based on OWS itself, the people are not in the streets demanding violent revolution, that isn't what they are chanting. The movement is called Occupy Wall street, when the date was set to protest it was self described as being against the corporate greed that has ruined our economy.. people initially came to the protests with this specific reason in mind.

What is false and pretending to be spokespeople for the protest are YOU and people like you are taking small isolated incidents and stating them as the goals and values of the movement.

According to the ATS criticizers the movement has all these malicious intentions, socialist or communist one day.. then the next day it's anarchist (even though those ideologies are at extreme odds with each other)
edit on 11/20/2011 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
No what I'm saying is fact based on OWS itself, the people are not in the streets demanding violent revolution, that isn't what they are chanting.


Yet, There are those doing that very thing.

Right?


The movement is called Occupy Wall street, when the date was set to protest it was self described as being against the corporate greed that has ruined our economy.. people initially came to the protests with this specific reason in mind.


I have no issues with that at ALL!


What is false and pretending to be spokespeople for the protest are YOU and people like you are taking small isolated incidents and stating them as the goals and values of the movement.


I'm calling you out here.



Where have I ever said they represent the whole or are the goals and values of the movement?



According to the ATS criticizers the movement has all these malicious intentions, socialist or communist one day.. then the next day it's anarchist (even though those ideologies are at extreme odds with each other)



Hence the lack of a "Cohesive message" by OWS supporters.

Can you read what I'm typing here?

Is my keyboard working?

Let's see..

Type

Type

Type

Hmmm... seems to be working!
edit on 20-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Drezden
That video is the worst/violent/aggressive OWS has been. In the video no one was hurt, the protestors vocally and physically denounce the actions of that very small handful of people who were vandalizing and harassing. Oakland has had more negative OWS moments than any other city.


You're the one who posted it and now you're trying to dismiss it



I can watch a video of a U.S. soldier throwing a puppy or shooting a civilian.. does that mean I believe U.S. soldiers as a whole are terrorists, violent and cruel? No I don't..


No and neither do I beleive it represnts the whole either but like the instances you brought up about puppies and cilvilians. THAT was discussed to death and was the object of much debate here at ATS.



but with the poor logic you use, that connection could easily be made.


I'll just let that sit there as example of your tactics.


Oh boy, you're back to trolling already, we can't just have a respectful mature debate.

Please stop making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I'm not dismissing the video, I'm telling you this is the worst the protestors have ever gotten against non-police, and even in this worst moment no one was hurt, and the protestors policed themselves. It's an example that even at OWS's worst it takes action against the bad behavior.

"No and neither do I beleive it represnts the whole either but like the instances you brought up about puppies and cilvilians. THAT was discussed to death and was the object of much debate here at ATS"

So you don't think it represents the whole yet you keep siting examples and stating things as overall descriptions, behavior, goals..etc.. flip flop much?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The movement is dynamic and has proponents of all kinds of stuff.

It would change to represent a more general picture of what is desired by the general public if more people associated themselves with the occupy movement. Right now the only people willing to take to the street for what they believe in are rather radical individuals of one group or another, not to mention the homeless and unfortunate. I would imagine if/when more people begin to loose their niceties and livelihoods the whole idea that is behind the "Occupy" movement would come alive as a representation of all of us, not just the people willing to take to the streets. People don't see this and argue about specifics here.

"Hijacking" the occupy movement is in fact the purpose of the movement itself, it needs to be hijacked by the greater population and transformed into an idealism that is for the good of all. The smartest among us, the ones who need to be participating in this movement, are not because of fear of what occupy is and lack of foresight on where it could go.

Can we change the general flow of this conversation now to something less petty and more relevant?

Or is this threads purpose really just to "ego one-up each other"?
edit on 20-11-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Drezden
No what I'm saying is fact based on OWS itself, the people are not in the streets demanding violent revolution, that isn't what they are chanting.


Yet, There are those doing that very thing.

Right?


The movement is called Occupy Wall street, when the date was set to protest it was self described as being against the corporate greed that has ruined our economy.. people initially came to the protests with this specific reason in mind.


I have no issues with that at ALL!


What is false and pretending to be spokespeople for the protest are YOU and people like you are taking small isolated incidents and stating them as the goals and values of the movement.


I'm calling you out here.



Where have I ever said they represents the whole or are the goals and values of the movement.?



According to the ATS criticizers the movement has all these malicious intentions, socialist or communist one day.. then the next day it's anarchist (even though those ideologies are at extreme odds with each other)



Hence the lack of a "Cohesive message" by OWS supporters.

Can you read what I'm typing here?

Is my keyboard working?

Let's see..

Type

Type

Type

Hmmm... seems to be working!
edit on 20-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


You just admitted that it's only the actions of some who are misbehaving or have extremist ideals.. yet you are now implying that "Yet, There are those doing that very thing.". Who is they? The whole protest? Or just the few?.. You IMPLY it's more significant. If you don't have a problem with the overall anti-corporate corruption problem then why don't you support the movement.. if as you say it's the "few" who are misbehaving?

Or will this actually make you realize that you are in fact generalizing an entire group based on the actions of the few within the group.

You make this too easy. Flip flop



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Oh boy, you're back to trolling already, we can't just have a respectful mature debate.


When name calling starts I know who is not being respectful nor mature




Please stop making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.


Quoting your replies is not putting words in your mouth

Good day.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
Or will this actually make you realize that you are in fact generalizing an entire group based on the actions of the few within the group.


I'm calling you and your bogus half-assed tactics and attempts to discredit out!



Lets cut the crap!
Talk about putting words in others mouths...pffft

From my very first post this morning!


reply to post by SLAYER69

Well I'm not a Tea Party member and I have been outspoken and critical of "some" of the movements actions. Yet I get called names and attacked simply because I DO talk about certain activities caused by "some" of the groups members

Which for some reason is a TABOO subject simply because it paints them in a bad light. {WE know its the actions by a few} yet what many OWS supporters choose to do is to instead of denouncing those activities they rather play them down...


edit on 20-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
I can watch a video of a U.S. soldier throwing a puppy or shooting a civilian.. does that mean I believe U.S. soldiers as a whole are terrorists, violent and cruel? No I don't..


I just have to jump in one this point in particular. I'm glad you can see the videos of U.S. Military forces committing crimes or atrocities and not judge the overall Military by it. So many seem unable to do that. It's important to distinguish individuals from the larger picture, and so that also applies to OWS.

However..... I also see those videos of what a few of our troops have become in the combat zone and likewise, I don't condemn soldiers. I DO however, come to turn against the war which is putting them in the position where these things are happening. At this point I have come to support a full and total withdrawal based largely on what I'm seeing this is doing to our own people and for what? People that don't care and couldn't be bothered to appreciate a bit of it.

Likewise...The hundreds upon hundreds of criminal violations of OWS members, inside camps, isn't something to judge every single member of OWS. I should never have to feel ashamed to have been a part of OWS myself, however briefly that lasted. However, Like your military example, and mine...I CAN come to realize the situation making these crimes, public obscenity (defecation on police cars) and more possible, needs to come to an end.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think you really hit the nail on the head with this post, I support the "occupy" movement because I feel that its time to rise up and speak but it has to be done correctly and as i stated in an earlier post about this movement is that it lacks command structure, if they could get centralized like the Occupy Philadelphia has become and the protesters act in a mature way and not give reasons for law enforcement to use force then this could really be the start of something bigger than all of us. Its about time the people stood up and said enough is enough.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman

One aspect of having an identifiable leadership is the ease with which that leadership can be nullified once it is identified, so I don't view that as a negative, but rather as a survival necessity. Identify the leaders, smear the leaders, by extension smear the movement, and kill it.


Don't look now - OWS is developing a de facto "leadership", and it appears to be one that they claim not to want anything to do with - yet they don't do much to stop it.

In any situation like this, "leaders" WILL rise to the top of the heap, whether you like it or not. You're better off choosing leaders rather than just letting them seize leadership. One way or the other, it will happen if the movement doesn't collapse under it's own weight.

At the moment, the ones seizing "leadership" are the very ones that OWS claims are in the minority and "don't represent the movement as a whole".

I hear that a lot. It doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Theses very people are the ones grabbing attention, and directing the conversation. Like it or not, that MAKES them the leaders in the power vacuum that is OWS. THEY are becoming the face of OWS, THEY are the ones being heard loudest, THEY are becoming the de facto "leadership" by virtue of making themselves heard above the dull roar of the rest.

If OWS doesn't want that to be their face, they'd damn well better get busy and do something about that. Structure yourselves. Pick your leaders rather than letting them pick themselves. EXPEL the unruly if you don't want them to be what your movement is known for.

Again, if OWS doesn't want these people for leaders, if OWS doesn't want to be known for their actions, if OWS doesn't want them to be the face of OWS, then OWS better damn well get busy and DO something about that. Something decisive. Nothing short of public expulsion will do at this point. People have seen the actions of the perceived leadership, and they're going to have to see the negative consequences of that action now for OWS to even begin to approach credibility.

I've been VERY critical of OWs. I have also offered numerous suggestion on how they should be able to improve their effect. That has mostly been ignored, and that's OK. It's not MY movement, after all. It's not going to be my movement, either, unless it gets it's crap together and into one sock. Run it as you see fit, but be prepared for the flood of "I told you so's".



The agenda is broad-ranging because the ills of our society are equally broad-ranging: one size doesn't fit all.


Do you eat your dinner all in one gulp? No, you don't. You would choke to death if you did. You eat it one bite at a time. That's a lesson OWS better learn pretty quick, before it chokes completely to death. Right now, it's having an awful gasping coughing fit.

One bite at a time. Chew. Swallow. THEN take the next bite.



Most of the anti-OWS crowd refuse to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the corruption and rot in our society, seemingly because they have a vested interest in the status quo, and don't want anything but changes on the fringes that will minimally effect them.


Baloney.

NO ONE is denying the corruption in our system. OWS is denying the corruption already rampant in their own. We are well aware of the corruption, and we are well aware that OWS is not going to do a damn thing about it, other than provide a distraction, a diversion for the corrupt politicians.

We don't deny the corruption, we reject the non-solutions of OWS.


edit on 2011/11/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Ive read all the posts here in this thread and i can respect all of them because we are free thinkers but I dont see a hidden agenda here. I see it as americans are pissed and are finally starting to awaken from their coma so to speak. If find that us as americans are slow to react to certain issues but when we do there are many things we can get accomplished but we have to do it right. I myself am tired of seeing whats happening here so in my heart of hearts i want to see this movement gain steam.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by Recce1
reply to post by Drezden
 

Why do you disregard the proven instance of an OWS demonstrator defecating on a police car? Was that merely a man responding to the call of nature?

You are grasping at straws indeed to excuse the behavior of all too many OWS protestors. Name one such instance of such an instance at a Tea Party rally.


First, I did not specifically disregard an OWS protestor defecating on a police car. That is one man, the majority of haven't been on police cars you would agree?

...



Nice.

You boldly make the claim that you "did not specifically disgregard" that rpotestor, then proceed to disregard him, specifically, all in the same post.

Nice.

Like it or not, HE is generating more conversation around the nation than either you or I. HE is a perceived leader of OWS. HE is the face of OWS,

OWS didn't do a damn thing about it, either, besides deny that he "represented the majority" of ows, then proceed to claim that OWS "represents the majority" of Americans.

Nice.

You claim representation for the "99%" as a minority, then claim that a minority cannot represent the whole. Isn't that sort of how they define "cognitive dissonance"?

There's a very simple solution to these perennial dispute over whether this protestor or that one represents the whole of OWS. let the whole of OWS EXPEL them, rather than trying to excuse the misbehaviors as a mere "aberration".

Get organized. Expel rabble. Pick your own leaders, rather than letting them pick you.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Most of the cities haven't had problems worthy of putting in the news, so you don't hear about the protestors who are behaving, you here repeated bad stories out of Oakland or NY and judge the whole protest by it. It's very skewed.



My point exactly.

Thank you for supporting it.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Who on ATS is speaking on behalf of OWS? I haven't seen anyone do that? As you've pointed out it is leaderless, so those that are speaking on behalf of OWS, especially on ATS.. are credible OWS spokespeople because?

It's inaccurate to say that OWS wants a violent revolution.



No. Just... NO.

It is NOT inaccurate.

The very disorganized, leaderless non-structure of OWS leaves it wide open. When there IS no leader, and there IS no focus, and there IS no direction, there can NEVER be an "inaccurate representation" any more than there can be an accurate one, simply because ANYTHING goes.

When anything goes, ANYTHING flies.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

That video is the worst/violent/aggressive OWS has been. In the video no one was hurt, the protestors vocally and physically denounce the actions of that very small handful of people who were vandalizing and harassing. Oakland has had more negative OWS moments than any other city. I can watch a video of a U.S. soldier throwing a puppy or shooting a civilian.. does that mean I believe U.S. soldiers as a whole are terrorists, violent and cruel? No I don't.. but with the poor logic you use, that connection could easily be made.



Not a valid comparison. Here's why:

The OWS has a few bad people. The US military ALSO has a few bad people.

The difference? The US Army has Fort Leavenworth. The OWS has nothing, No method for sequestration of the bad out of the "movement".



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Really? This is the type of stuff authoritarians consider a "solid",no pun, argument? Overreaching much?





top topics
 
48
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join