Occupy Wall Street. And all its congeners worldwide.

Several descriptors come to mind: Deluded. Demented. Morons.

The headless horseman rides again. Just in time for Hallowe'en.

what are you babbling about?

You've got 'celebrity' company: Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney. I'll pass.
My advice, don't look in the mirror and clean your cookies, or that rabble is coming after you too...

Beyond the observation that most of the 'protestors' were admirably decked out in the latest finery, were sporting cellphones, etc, giving new meaning to the word hypocrisy*, it's pretty clear that the protests (in North America at least) were merely outings in the park (so to speak).
* It is clear that most of them owed their attendance and accoutrements precisely to the capitalism which they were decrying.

The Occupy Atlanta outing, which denied a politician the right to speak, ostensibly because the 'movement' should be perceived as leaderless, was a tad misguided.

And, of course, leaderless movements have such a great record of success. Tien An Men Square is a prime example of where that leads. If memory serves, the last time anarchy had a glimmer of a toe hold was just before WWI when Gavrilo Princip threw a bomb into the carriage of Archduke Ferdinand.

Give me a good old-fashioned protest march with respect to something that matters and is focussed, such as anti-nukes (early '60s) and anti-Vietnam War (late '60s and early '70s).
But also consider that the latter had no real impact either.

Sorry Grelber, since even the homeless have cellphones - they are essential getting even the most menial work -- and cellphones were essential to the success of the Arab springs, your assertions fail to be convincing.

If one's going to dump on capitalism and its fruits while being beholden to capitalism and and flaunting its fruits, then one is the stereotypical hypocrite, as well as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (to use a polite metaphor).

Hogwash, to use another polite (albeit agricultural) metaphor. A rather condescending and dismissive attitude like yours has traditionally contributed to civil unrest whenever people had real grievances that were being ignored. For instance, did you actually try and have a good look at the 'choices' you claim the protesters have before throwing out value judgements like 'hypocrisy'? Attaboy, grelber!

“The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine.”

George Bernard Shaw

Darned tootin' I've informed myself. Short of actually being at one of these gatherings — like that'd ever happen — I've garnered my appreciation of same via various media outlets.

With the occasional homeless-appearing individual wandering through the scene, the majority of participants are yuppie scions spouting leftist rhetoric, while doing exactly what I commented on in my previous post. Mindless drivel about a movement without the necessity of a leader.

Sure, there's a point to be made about excessive bank profits and several other issues being shouted about, but jumping up and down and raving and in some cases vandalism and violence isn't going to have any meaningful effect.

The Occupy Wall Street 'sit-in' has been going on for a month. Notice what effect it has had on Wall Street and the banks.

The Occupy Toronto folk were hoping for an impact when Bay Street (the stock markets) opened today. Care to guess the outcome? The only jitters there are due to oil prices and global (particularly Euro Zone) concerns.

So I stand by every point I've made. Patting self on back: Attaboy, indeed!

As they said in olden days: Like it or lump it.

That assessment from someone who doesn't know how to 'delete a file' after using Mac OS for over a decade? I think you can find [deleted] just by looking in the mirror.

Since you openly condone deceit and kleptomania as perpetrated by big banks and other titans of trade, i would assume you can more than afford to get broadband service yourself. So you should use that extra bandwidth to visit YouTube and view some of the news reports (that you've obviously missed) from 2008-2010 to educate yourself.

Archduke Ferdinand? Gimme a break.

Pardon me if I'm not impressed by your information gathering. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions, just like others are entitled to sort them where they think they belong. But given your appreciation for the 'various media outlets' you perused, isn't it small wonder that one of the protesters' issues is the overwhelming media bias against them (sic!) and the points they are trying to make? I suppose those media know darned tootin' well which side of their sandwich is buttered, something which automagically seems to turn all they produce into the Undisputed Truth...


It sure looks like you enjoy disparaging what you see by focusing on appearances rather than on essence. Why, it almost seems like you're as happy to throw out the future of unemployed youth who have the gall to protest the fairness of their treatment as you are to punt the proverbial baby. But I think I get it: no skin off your back.

And then there are your distractions of guilt by association. So far, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the US have been remarkably non-violent, barring some actions by police (!) and opportunistic fringe elements. Most violence abroad occurred in Rome, largely instigated and perpetrated by a known extremist group not related to the local OWS organizers.


Wall Street's subversion of the financial system took decades to orchestrate, and you are demanding instant results from the (re)actions of some of those victimized?


Your summary may prove providential...

As Lounge moderator, you have my permission (and desire) to delete this thread in its entirety.
Not enough of the ad hominem remarks have been excised from your and others' comments.
I won't be contributing any more fodder for same.

The irony is almost Biblical.

Somehow it reminds me of this column.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

They tried (1) and I think they're well into (2) at this point, I wonder when we'll see (3)? (maybe that's why they haven't been forcibly removed yet?)

Here's hoping that Massachusetts will elect Warren and give Brown the boot. He's just a tool for the banksters, and no one needs to explain to her what the Occupy Wall Street crowd is protesting...

Except that the protesters aren't decrying capitalism. That's the right-wing spin, and I'm a little surprised that anyone who can work a computer would fall for it, but it isn't what's going on.

What they're decrying is something a little more specific. They're decrying corruption--financial institutions that deliberately issue financial instruments that they know are worthless, for instance, and then bet against their own instruments in the derivative market...and then, when their firms tank and are bailed out by the government, take the bailout money and give it to themselves. (When Merrill Lynch was bailed out, the board took one third of the money--about $1.3 billion--and gave it to themselves as bonuses, for instance.)

That's what they're protesting. Not capitalism itself. If you think they don't like capitalism, you just aren't paying attention.

...I wonder how much of that $1.3 billion was yours?

Well, considering that grelber believes that the "good old-fashioned...anti-Vietnam War" protests "had no real impact," perhaps his objection is based more on a perception that the occupiers' efforts are doomed to failure in the face of the unassailable hegemony of the ruling class (to wax Marxist for a moment ) and therefore represent a colossal waste of time, hence qualifying their practitioners for the "deluded, demented, morons" label. Ridicule based on the hopelessness rather than the unworthiness of their goals, as it were.

(For what it's worth, my take on the antiwar movement in the late sixties and early seventies is that it was a huge part of the process by which Americans' perceptions of that war turned negative. But that's from the perspective of one who majored in American History; perhaps the impact is less obvious to folks who aren't used to tracing the trajectories of historical movements...)

(Responding to the most recent post for convenience only.)

I just ran across this.