Forum Post: Why are we being monitored by opposition?
Posted 11 years ago on June 1, 2012, 8:05 p.m. EST by elf3
(4203)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I can't figure it out - they monitor us day and night - I'm not out there lurking on their websites - it's just plain fucking weird - does anyone here agree? I have a purpose in being here - I feel strongly about it (But they feel there is nothing wrong with the system so I can only draw the conclusion that their feelings can't really be so strong as to give a shit about us) What is going on - who are these people ? Why do they care to bother with us? Are they political advisers? Are they afraid occupy might have some real sway? I'm trying to get it really - is it Fox news trying to gussy up some bad quotes on us? Why would anyone be spending all their time or energy analyzing a movement they believe has no point or clout? What are our actual numbers so as to draw so many "opposers" to debate? All I can say is I've never even been blogging to the people I oppose, ever and I really HAte the people I hate, but still can't be bothered to seek them out - so.... Can someone help me out with this? I think it might be that our numbers are massive - and it's political strategists and Wall Street monitoring us and debating us trying to make it seem like we aren't as large as I know we are. This way when the candidate they program in through the voting machines wins it will seem like he had actual supporters.
It isn't about your "massive" numbers or fear about OWS. I like to come by because I find the whole thing very interesting. I'm not a paid analyst or political advisor, or anything else. There is a wild mix of people on this site that I find fascinating at times, and frustrating at others. I enjoy debating the issues and calling people out on their ridiculous claims at times. I've even been know to agree every now and then.
I feel about the same. Been lurking here since last Oct. I agree with the money out of politics....our nation has lost its way. I came here to see what OWS was all about and if it was something I could support. Unfortunately, if you are not a progressive liberal blah blah, and you have trouble swallowing some of their stuff, you are not only insulted, you are THE OPPOSITION to far too many on this forum.
That, in itself will doom this movement to the old 'footnote of history'. The ruling class understands that politcs make strange bedfellows. OWS does not embrace the cooperation and respect for others' opinions necessary to ever unite the so called 99%, if this forum is any good indicator.
It's like a human ant farm isn't it? It's fascinating to watch them act like they do, say what they do etc. A fantastic real world science experiment.
I think both sides can get a little worked up...and downright nasty at times. I attribute that to the anonymity that this forum allows, as well as the limitations of written word. I'm as guilty as the next person.
Human ant farm.... I like that. Now if we could just get a live Ustream feed from one of their real farms/communes - we'd be in business. A new reality show!
I haven't seen much support for Walker
accept in the "poles"
Matt - your responses intrigue me. I believe there is some sort of secret code or something, or maybe you are using these boards to deliver covert messages.
Maybe if I collected all your posts and played them backwards there would be some sort of manifesto revealed. Because individually, they rarely make sense.
I am of the opinion that he's on the board of one of those Legalize Pot committees....
Yeah, at first I thought Matt was "slow", but every now and then he makes sense.....mostly he seems to be in left field, tho. His posts rarely relate to the topic. Thx for bringing it up lol
nobody has said anything nice about the man
In fact, no one in this thread has said ANYTHING about the man. I just have no idea where that comment came from, why you said it, or who it was directed to.
It is definitely a pattern in your posts.
MLH seems to suffer from a dissociative disorder of some sort,.
Seriously, it is very common in his posts - I don't know what he is talking about half the time.
LOL (thought I was going to wake people up)
The Internet has given many inadequate people the ability to pretend to be more than they are. Any troubled teenager or unemployed alcoholic can get on a forum and make any outrageous statements they wouldn’t make to someone’s face. It’s basically entertainment for a lot of people. Just something to do other than watch TV. I think Matt falls somewhere in this category.
For me, I’m an anti-OWS person. That wasn’t always so, in fact I was originally a strong pro-OWS person. Then the problems with the encampments shook my confidence.
Then I stumbled on this forum, don’t remember how I found it, wasn’t looking for it. But after monitoring the watching the threads, joining and making about fifty or so posts, it became clear to me that OWS was not for the 99%. In my view mostly a group of over-idealistic, over-privileged and naïve young folks looking for a street party.
I view the anarchists as borderline terrorists. I’m aware I’m painting with a broad brush with my statements. I know there are a lot of sane and logical people in OWS, unfortunately they’re vastly outnumbered.
One thing I’ve noticed is the same hundred or so people do 80% of the posts. As I said. I think is entertainment for some people.
I rarely visit this forum anymore and seldom post. I’m not paid by anyone and stopped trying to change anyone’s mind here. I’m just an old guy who is part of the real 99%.
Nice job JB...
NUR
100 that sounds like a high estimate
I don't know
appeasement and feigning innocence - both classic manipulation tactics
You asked. I answered. Believe what you want.
Because they like to learn how the enemy think so they can sqash us like bugs ....what do you think?
It would appear we disagree on just how corrupt the system is, I still believe with large enough numbers we can throw the bastards out, at least the worst one (at a time).
But to speak to your question, before social media got to where it is today I knew someone, who if they could would do what we see here on the forum, just for fun, I think I see the signs in some responders. I have no experience on other forums so was unaware it was less contested there. The purpose seems clear to me, as for myself, I could not get Al Franken to broadcast the things I say, tho he was kind enough to say he would…..
Since no man does anything in secret there is no reason to worry about being monitored or spied upon. The prostitutes who do the actual spying need the work so pity them- don't fear them, as you would any other prostitutes.
Ofcourse, both supporters of the corporate parties are monitored. They treat you like mindless consumers. And quite frankly, when parties mess up continually, and people still vote for them, I cant blame em.
They probably treat this forum, and every other chat room, like a focus group almost. Post some questions, see what the responses are.
Monitor, hell. The invaders are like black flies in April.
For an exception, take a spin through this posting. Romney blames a priest for killing Mrs. Leona Anderson but it is backfiring on him:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/mary-jo-kopechne-and-leola-anderson-rest-in-peace
You are absolutely right. Your vote will be countless. What can you do against media machine. Programmed people who watching and believe to everything the tv boxes says will call you loony. Everything is fine, why dont you enjoyed it? You may have some trauma, they said. All we see is a small picture. we are being programmed and that is why we have tunnel vision. They are not ONLY monitoring arab spring with proxy social media accounts, but sure they taking survey into the world of occupy. http://occupywallst.org/forum/confession-from-an-ex-paid-shill/
OWS truly frightens the people who benefit from our sick society and the political and economic systems that have burgeoned from it. They quite like things the way they are where the few benefit tremendously at the dire expense of the rest. Occupy seeks to change society from the bottom up and replace the broken political and economic systems with ones that work for all people. Scary stuff.
"Attitude is the difference between ordeal, and adventure." author unknown
I like that quote, Odin. Cool and true.
Yep for most things, it is true, and I do my best to live by it. It is not true for real human tragedies though.
When the movement is about boycotts, and using our political right to disband monopolies, and ending their inflated gravy train - they apparently will give their full attention at de-railing it ... This just doesn't mesh with their ad campaigns - when people begin to connect the products to their wretched unethical practices and the slime bags profiting from them - it presents a huge PR problem huge enough to be paying people to attempt to derail it.
1)They are paid. 2)They are without a doubt Chicken shit!
I wish I could get paid for trolling this forum...if you know someone hiring for a position,please let me know.
Try any RNC sponser
Funny. But I wish it were that easy.
[Removed]
The opposition. They are non-partisan. Though they would like you to believe that they are. They love to see the battle between political party supporters. They love to see the fighting between supporters of differing ideologies. They love to see fighting between liberal and conservative, between left right and center. They love it all. Why? Because it pulls us apart and distracts from their plan of action.
George Carlin has seven dirty words you can't say on TV.
Echelon has thousands of words that it is keyed to recognize and monitor the conversations where these words come up. Social media is one of those words. Media Blackout is a phrase.
Anyway Echelon is not really here or there. It just is something that is going on.
The opposition - the greedy corrupt criminals that are bribing government and is in the business of making and selling arms and is in the business of fossil fuel etc etc etc WallStreet Halliburton Shell BP Con ED Center point energy the Tennessee valley authority Koch Wells Fargo Goldman Sachs etc etc etc
They are all afraid of the rising unrest of the American people and in extension the people of the world.
Sure this is a small forum - but it is on the internet with world wide access.
The opposition is afraid of ideas and ideals. They are afraid that one is going to find fertile ground and grow.
Like perhaps the idea of a more direct type of Democracy.
Or the successful pushing of legislation like OSTA or reinstate Glass-Stegall or remove corporate personhood, or get money out of politics or green energy implementation or fossil fuel speculation regulation etc etc etc
They are terrified that we will become People Partisan, that we will realize that we have more in common then we have differences. They are terrified that we will unite.
And so they send out their blind marching foot soldiers to keep an eye on things everywhere and to keep things stirred up and contentious.
That is the enemy that is so concerned about a little insignificant forum.
Think about it - Wall Street is excellent at manipulating numbers, the media are experts at manipulating perception ... What are our numbers? I though everyone owned an i-pad until I found out it's actually only 17 percent of us here in America. What are the numbers on supporters - we need to gather this data and expose the truth about how great our numbers are. Proof positive is how many - political propagandists we've attracted from the opposition
I will tell you why I am here I first came here when I saw the OWS people camped out in a major city and realized that it was nothing but a reason to party. People were defecating on the streets, drinking, using drugs and having public sex. To make matters worst, they were complaining about a myriad of issues with no coherent thought. Issues like rejecting the Keystone Pipeline and saying that we don't need cheap energy.
When I came here to delve into it more I see a lot of I want this and I want that. I want all of these services without working or paying for it. I am frankly amazed at the lack of basic economic understanding. Many people who post here think that various forms of socialism will work and that if it wasn't for the Man keeping them down, they would be doing great.
At first I was very amused, but honestly, I am now very frightened. I fear we will be Greece very soon as people demand services but don't work or pay for them.
Even republicans like McCain have been calling for the restoration of Glass Steagall (so this isn't a very controversial idea, and during the 7 decades it was in place, somehow we managed to avoid becoming like Greece). Greece is an interesting case. Their taxes supporting their retirement system is in excess of 30% (a draconian generational wealth shift), and so I would contend that we have very little in common with Greece.
The reintroduction of Glass Steagall is not a big issue but solving the problem of guaranting of deposits will not go away with Glass Steagall. There were many bank failures during that period. Probably a better way to eliminate the risk of bank failure is to increase the ratio of equity that the banks have to hold.
But the reintroduction of GS will decrease the availability of credit and lesses the opportunity for wealth transfer as only the best credits will get loans This was the way it was during that period and most well off people use private investment firms to garner higher returns. The individual will not have access to these returns. Venture capital firms will love to take this money back from the bank.
Nearly 50% of the current US budget now goes to transfer payments. If you look at some of the state budgets you will see above 30% of revenue going to fund future retirement benefits.
In the face of all this .... how do you explain increasing wealth disparity? I mean, it's becoming so bad, the US is heading towards banana republic status. Moreover, there's no evidence to suggest that during the Glass Steagall period (up until 1999) that there was any shortfall in available credit, whereas I think at least some evidence exists that post-Graham Leach, what we witnessed was irrational credit expansion (on a scale rarely, if ever, seen in our history).
Increasing wealth disparity has occurred in nearly all growing countries since the advent of free market policies in China. So it is clear that there is a bigger impact here than just tax and spend policies.
Credit was much harder to come by prior to GS. All you have to do is look at the level of debt in the US to see the obvious impact. Irrational credit expansion has always occurred in history and is much more dependent upon the monetary system than anything else. It is clear that the Fed went off the rules in late 90's early 00s.
Why would we prefer banking over venture capital? In my view these are two functions that should not be combined. One involves much higher levels of risk than the other, and the public should not subsidize private risk taking (unless there's some real benefit to society, and enriching bankers at the expense of the public is a detriment to society, not a benefit).
I agree that the public should not subsidize risk taking (even if there is some real benefit since we are favoring one person over another). I don't think regulation can stop that risk taking as the knowledge just isn't there. We studied this issue 20 years ago and it is thorny since how do you completely absolve the government from backstopping risk.
The market will probably solve it by allowing private firms to grow in those lending spaces where banks won't tread. This is already happening as many hedge funds are now becoming nothing but regional bank lenders. Of course, the government is completely clueless to this movement.
One group of individuals should not be enriched by taking from another. As an example the EXIM Bank was just re-funded and there was very little opposition to this. The only debate came from the Tea Party. Where was the OWS or this site? This is a perfect example of a subsidy going to a corporation for no reason.
I mean, Glass Steagall gave us 70 years of relative financial stability. The only real problems came after deregulation (in fact, every time we weakened the law, there were consequences). Yes, there were still "some" bank failures, but 2008 was a systemic breakdown of the entire system. Glass Steagall was not created under some delusion that we can exhaustively manage risk in all cases, rather, it was designed to avoid a Great Depression scenario (a systemic crash), and while it wasn't perfect (and maybe no regulation can be perfect), it was sufficient (which, in many cases, is the best men can do).
I'm quite tired of all the ideological dogma we have floating around this country. Whether it comes from the left or right, it's just stupid.
Do you believe the Robin Hood tax on trades is a good idea?
I think you mean the tax on Wall Street trade. If we need to pay for the system of transaction, yes then a usage fee or tax is appropriate. But to tax market trades to fund some other idea, no I am not for it. This would be separating the action and the responsibility.
I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse. Your fears about Greece.
http://www.92y.org/Uptown/Campaign-for-the-American-Conversation.aspx
The socialism thing, I don't think it works either. But there are some people that think that there has been such damage done to the economy, particularly over the past 30 years, the financial crisis was when it all hit the fan, that capitalism must be the problem. And some other economic system must be the answer. I disagree. The problem is not capitalism itself, but the policies based on neo-liberal economic theories that have dominated the past 30 years. That is the problem. The classical liberal economic theories have been slandered. And the neo-libs have turned Adam Smith into a socialist/communist in order to advance more neo-lib policies.
Getting back to some classical liberal policies, with some Keynesian policies to help things along, would do alot to help. But poor Adam Smith has been turned into a communist/socialist by the right wing - 'the wealthy are the job creators' crowd. Get rid of this nonsensical idea, and we can begin to turn a corner.
What "classical liberal economic" theories do you find preferable to "neoliberal" economics, since both tend to assert that the markets will self regulate? Also, what part of Keynesian economics do you disagree with?
It's a matter of degrees. It's laissez faire v laissez faire on steroids.
Adam Smith was for progressive tax rates, believed in a certain amount of regulation, believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported government provided education and government regulation.
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''
He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''
It's only the neo-libs that have turned poor Adam Smith into a socialist/communist.
I like Keynes insofar as his theories address the demand side. And demand is the problem. But even the Bush tax refund (Keynsian)didn't work as intended. Though there were many economists that predicted it wouldn't be very effective as a stimulus. There is good data that shows what kinds of government spending is most effective as stimulus. Food stamps is high on the list. It helps drive the food chain so to speak. Keeps 'spending' circulating through the broader based economy. It 'touches' lots of stuff. Producers, manufacturers, retailers, distributors and transportation. Because it has to be 'spent'. Unlike a one time refund like Bush tried to do. Which was used to pay down debt or save. Not a bad thing. Not a very effective stimulus though.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=863
All common sense says demand is the problem. So it should be addressed with demand side policies. If supply were the problem, then I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to reducing tax rates or reducing regulations. If there was demand, and supply was constrained. But with high unemployment, record corporate profits, the wealthy are wealthier than ever, 50% of the population is at or near poverty level. Demand is the problem. The neo-libs ignore the demand side. As if supply will create its own demand. The wealthy are not job creators. They are suppliers. They don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. Unless there is demand. Demand has to come first. Not the other way around. No demand, no job creation. Giving them more tax breaks or less regulation won't increase demand.
This is all mostly common sense. But there is data to support as well. For instance, survey of small business indicates that demand is the problem.
See Figure D. http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/
It seems we agree very much on what would be an effective strategy to address our economic problems, versus what wouldn't (isn't). I also agree that Adam Smiths ideas often have been distorted. I generally tend to see a focus on the concept of "the invisible hand" (used by neolibs) while ignoring the rest of what Smith had to say. The same tendency applies to "pretend Keynesians". Keynes was very clear on the need to get the money to the people and stressed "full employment" as a solution as well as the importance of "aggregate demand". What is also conveniently overlooked is what Keynes described as "leakage" (to an economy") in the form of a trade deficit. This, in our current situation, is huge. Attempts to provide stimulus will have little effect when massive amounts of wealth are simultaneously siphoned of through the practice of offshoring/outsourcing.
Adam Smith 'distorted' - puts it mildly. I still say the 'wealthy are the job creators' crowd have turned him into a socialist/communist. Scaring the bejeezus out of people.
I agree with you about the 'invisible hand'. Neolibs place an inordinate amount of emphasis on this at the expense of everything else. Totally out of balance. They would rather allow the 'invisible hand' to proliferate monopolies, even as it decreases competition. Smith was fearful of large corporations and monopolies. Large powerful mega corps, TBTF banks, all ok with neolibs. God forbid government tries to break up some of these monopolies. Or intervenes in any way a mega merger. The neolibs encourage it. The invisible hand is creating monopolies, corporatocracy, and anti trust is all but dead. Neolibs are fine with all this.
Although there's at least some encouraging signs regarding the TBTF banks anyway. More and more economists and experts are saying these monopolies should be broken up. Not the least of which is the Dallas Fed. And as a 'stimulus' this would be relatively cheap to the tax payer. I suppose the only cost would be going after them using anti-trust regulation.
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11.pdf
The contradiction with the invisible hand, is any kind of stimulus attempt at all. Supply side or demand side. I don't get it. As a neolib, you can't say on the one hand to rely on the free market to work its magic and in the same breathe say 'let's give tax assistance to millionaires' (Romney/Ryan budget, $265M tax break for millionaires). It makes no sense. We already have the lowest tax rates in like 100 years. I don't understand how they get away with it. Except they have truly scared the beejezus out of people. And so brainwashed people that 'the wealthy are the job creators'.
Leakage/globalization is a long term challenge, won't be solved in the short run. Still need good stimulus in the short term. Even if some will be siphoned off. The only way I think to solve the globalization leakage is innovation. We can't play China's game with slave wages. The only way to get there is to have the best public education system in the world. Not merely average. It's little wonder we have problems when our education system has been slipping at the same time NAFTA and China were taking low level/blue collar jobs out of the country. We haven't had enough increase in education/innovation to fill that gap.
Long term, better education hopefully will lead to increased innovation. Innovation creates jobs. Innovation has a home country bias. Until the technology is perfected/standardized, then will move/partner with the lowest cost producer capable of executing. This needs to be a continuous cycle, constantly replacing standardized innovation, with newer innovation, that will again have a home country bias. Until it is standardized and moves on to the lowest cost producer. I don't see any other feasible way to compete with China.
There certainly is a contradiction with so called free market theory, and as you say,special breaks for the millionaires/ billionaires. It is certainly true that demand is what creates jobs. Without demand, no business will hire. That is basic Keynes. As to your take on globalization, I have to disagree. Are you aware of the history of the US in regard to trade policy, as in tariffs? I also question the idea that innovation is the answer. The idea that only blue collar jobs are being lost is also inaccurate, although I believe we need to keep those too. The higher skilled, higher paying jobs tend to migrate to where the manufacturing takes place. This is occurring now. A Chinese factory in need of engineers or IT specialists is not going to access these services from the US. Free trade is a neoliberal tool which enables labor arbitrage, which is to say, freely move labor to what ever nation allows the greatest level of exploitation. Free trade agreements are not in the US constitution, nor are they a part of the greater part of our history. If you haven't seen the chart of historical tariffs in the US, this may interest you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
Good points. But ultimately won't higher tariffs affect purchasing power? What happens when prices rise? Doesn't this lead to closing borders? Not to mention the geo-political aspects. I do not know. There just seems to be alot of complications with tariffs and trade. I just feel like investing/strengthening/focusing on education and innovation has its own intrinsic value. With a lot less geo-political complication. Investing in our own human capital. Which has to lead to a stronger economy. Education should be to us, what oil is to the Middle East.
"...won't higher tariffs affect purchasing power?" A fair question. In fact, it will indeed affect purchasing power, but in the opposite direction that you might think. For this we have a good historical example. The 1950s through the early 1970s was a period when the US saw its' greatest prosperity. During this period of time the US had a rising standard of living, rising wages, low unemployment, (5.5%) and low inflation. 1968 was the first time the US had a trade deficit as opposed to a trade surplus. It was small at first, but it has grown to astronomical proportions today. Throughout the history of the US, tariffs fluctuated a quite a bit. They ranged 44.6% (average) in 1870 to a low of 6.5% in 1815 up until 1948. Then came Bretton Woods and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). From that point to the present, tariffs have been minimal, dropping to an average of 1.3% in 2010. If you look at the chart in the link below, you will see that that average tariffs were quite high. This is how the US became the top manufacturer in the world. It was through the abandonment of this strategy the the US lost that status to China in 2010. Back to the issue of purchasing power. The increased cost of having goods made in the US is vastly offset by the increase in income from the jobs that we once had and could be recovered with appropriate protections. Unemployed people have very little purchasing power. As for the education issue, I think that is sometimes used as a talking point. The reality seems to be, about half of college grads are unemployed or underemployed. It may be that the courses of study aren't always the most appropriate, but (increasingly) many high tech jobs are being outsourced as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-10/news/31659198_1_graduates-job-outlook-heldrich-center
Very nice post!
It's not exactly Ron Paul stuff.
Not everything is black and white in my world
So you're not a Republican? : )
I'm an American that is digusted with both parties and the direction this country is going. I also happen to believe Ronnie was the best choice in a field of losers. I am also an ABO woman. That's anybody but obama.
Lies - you'd be writing to your politician if you were so motivated - I believe you are paid strategists - nothing more. And you'd be afraid of Wall Street crashing the dollar, outsourcing us to death, and creating anarchy (not us who seek to prevent soup lines) How many times can the media put out there the defecating rapes drugs - really ? All these educated college grads who may have even studied hmm... economics? Perception is reality I guess but it's all propaganda - and you are repeating it word for word to the script. Greece defecation - socialist agendas ... You're not some guy sitting on his computer on a Friday night oh just deciding to go oh confront a protest - I really find it hard to believe, unless maybe, you are a Wal-mart Walton - in that case I hope you're "defecating" in your pants in fear of this protest. Then I could see your motivation.
No, I back the challenger candidates, not the incumbent. My politician is a career politician and she will vote with money and union interests everytime.
I would be careful throwing around harsh words, such as lies, as you don't know me and only make yourself look foolish.
lies... then threats ? Who's going to make me look foolish (you the paid strategist)? So what's new can't get much lower than defecation can you? People will stop giving you any credence at all -we've got your number and you're a fool to think the American public are as dumb as you take them for. Our generation is coming and we aren't the Pepsi generation - we are anti- consumerism and that is Wall Streets biggest fear - all that money spent trying to brainwash generations of children ....wasted - how many ads did they pay for? And they don't give up - how much do they pay strategists, maybe you can tell us?
I am not threatening you, you have already made yourself look foolish.
The American public will always worry about liberty, jobs, and prosperity hence their support for Walker in Wisconsin. They realize that you have to pay for your services and there are no free handouts.
Wall Street doesn't pay for advertising, that is Madison Avenue. You know, Mad Men. I see no evidence that your generation is anti-consumerism, so please show me. Is Apple selling less Ipads?
How about thousands of my generation camped out in tents in cities across America - what other evidence do you need -Ah yes Apple (Wall Streets little baby and supposed savior) - well I suppose they just keep up the propaganda on it then everyone will have to have one since they think everyone else has one - but they don't - they're only profiting from 17 percent of Americans and that's because they upper half doesn't give a crap about the unjustifiable mark-up on a slave made product (the rest of us aren't buying though and never will) Again with the free hand outs - how is preventing a fixed Wall Street market that will actually enable entrepreneurship to thrive again, equated with hand-outs? Oh because if you repeat a thing enough times it becomes true? Well with that logic you've surely changed my mind on this whole thing.
Thousands - lets be generous and say 20,000, there are over 300 million people in the US with 150 million of them below the age of 38. So 20,000 divided by 150 million does not a trend make. Now if you had many 20% - 30 million people camping out, you would have an argument.
You are kidding about Apple right. Over 90% of Americans have a cell phone. That a really high number. And guess what, 34% of American teenagers have an Apple Iphone. Oops, wrong again.
Little Elf, I am not trying to change your mind. Your clearly have already made a fool of yourself.
He made himself look foolish when he said "I though everyone owned an i-pad until I found out it's actually only 17 percent of us here in America"
The reason no one is publishing the "numbers" on who supports OWS anymore is because as of Jan 2012 those numbers were falling through the floor.
The latest poll I could find was:-
Only 16% of Americans in April said they were supporters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/14/occupy-wall-street-people-power-popularity
The Failure of Occupy Wall Street-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-failure-of-occupy-wal_b_1558787.html (published 5/31/2012)
Basically the reason there are so many "opposers" here is because they reflect the exact situation that exists in reality-and that is that 80+% of the American citizens do NOT support OWS.
Yes - I typed a word wrong - oh what a fool you must think me !!!
My my you have spent quite a bit of time gathering your spin articles as "evidence" well since the media says it - it must be true!! I suppose that's why you're here to combat this teeny tiny little itty bitty movement (really?) and that seems logical right? What a waste of a Friday night for you ... on such a "small little fraction of a protest"
Um...I didn't say you typed a word wrong. My point was that you "thought everyone owned an i-pad" (no one thinks that everyone owns an ipad).
And the fact that you didn't even catch the point I was making-makes you look even MORE foolish.
You said you found out that only "17% of Americans" actually own ipads....did you learn that from the MEDIA? Whomever you learned that from MIGHT be wrong....right?
I'm not here to combat this movement. I'm here to attempt to add clarity and FACTS to the discussions here. That it is a waste of time is something we can agree on.
Fascists are notoriously paranoid! They're self-loathing because every once in a while they realize how evil they are. So they anticipate the consequences. Worry about the retribution. Dread the punishment. The fate of tyrants, dictators and Nazis is infamous.
Here, they slime because they can't censor like they do everywhere else (their idols own MSM, Fox, and RW Hate-Lie radio). This whole anti-People, authoritarian-worship, RW ideology could never withstand full disclosure or an even playing field. People would see it for what it really is, not the pseudo-righteous facade, and have nothing to do with it. Just as RepubliCons could never win an election without cheating. So they come here to disrupt, just like the Cons in Congress.