Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Facebook Politics Technology

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99% 451

Posted by samzenpus
from the will-it-have-games? dept.
hypnosec writes "In 2011, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook helped protesters to spread their cause and garner support across the world. What started out as a minor protest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide protest thanks to the use of social media. According to Wired, after seeing the impact social media platforms have had on protests worldwide, several Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their own social networking platform aimed at spreading awareness about particular causes and rallying people for protests."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:10AM (#38537312)

    Then they will be in the 1%.

  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:15AM (#38537332)

    Then they will be in the 1%.

    They already are "the 1%".

    Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?

    My bad.

    Strat

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:15AM (#38537340)

    I look forward to the day when they give up on this because it's too hard, much like they did with their protests....

  • by TheTruthIs (2499862) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:17AM (#38537350)
    Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.
  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:24AM (#38537396)
    There are three reasons I see for giving up on the protests:
    1. It isn't working. The rich remain obscenely rich, corporate interests continue to trump public interests, and politicians remain betrothed to their corporate sponsors. For all the fuss the protests made, they change nothing.
    2. People are getting bored. Media coverage isn't what it was, and there is no point protesting if you don't get attention for it. That is the purpose of the protest.
    3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently.

    There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored. That leaves them with the choice of either giving up or turning to more desperate measures like illegal direct action. We've seen a little of the latter in the Anonymous operation to use stolen credit card details to donate to charities.

    I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street psycho start bombing banks yet. The environmental movement has a few, the pro-life movement has a few... maybe it just needs time.
  • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:24AM (#38537402)
    It sounds more like propaganda.

    What the Occupy protesters don't realize it isn't just the 1% that really don't care for their methods or all their ideals, there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

    The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one). Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need anymore. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

    We get these protest groups (on both sides) like the Tea Party and the Occupy when the economy is down. Why? For one a lot of them have extra free time so they can actually go out and protest. Secondly they are suffering right now so they are angry and passionate in their protests. However when things get better they will moderate a little.
     
  • by F69631 (2421974) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:25AM (#38537410)

    From the summary & headline one could think that they are, well, building something facebook-like and that their target audience would be people like the ones who attended "occupy wallstreet" protest. The first claim is completely inccorect, the second only partially so. Rather, they're building a non-centralized social network for organizing protests, etc. because they feel that they can't trust FB and other existing services to protect the anonymity, etc. of protesters well enough.

    I guess it's a good cause. Then again, a service like that is easy to block by police states with much less public outcry than if they blocked FaceBook or similar services. Anyone with enough know-how to get around that problem probably can do what they need to through already existing services. I'm not saying that - if they ever get it finished - it can't offer any advantages so it's cool that they're doing it... But I (having some activist background myself) really doubt the project will ever get finished.

  • Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bicx (1042846) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:27AM (#38537414)
    Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.

    If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.
  • 1% vs 99% (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:34AM (#38537444)

    I am fucking sick of a bunch of hippies speaking for me and the rest of the 99%

    Especially a bunch of hippies with a full belly and iphones who are better of than the 99% of humanity

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:40AM (#38537500)

    Can you translate this into a arabic language?

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:41AM (#38537508)

    *If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.

    The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:46AM (#38537552)

    Reason 4 - They've lost interest since it all was really nothing more than a fad. Probably about 50% of the people "protesting" had no clue why they were there. All they knew was that it was cool, there was free food, drugs available and loose women.

    Now, they've all gone back to their mother's basements or their cardboard box somewhere.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:54AM (#38537612)

    Not working? You expected immediate results? The Occupy movement has already influenced public debate. Real change takes time.

    While it's a natural tendency (especially for those of us more comfortable interacting with technology than our fellow humans) to avoid mass movements, there is a substantial history of government changes in response to these forces. Consider the 40-hour work week; worker protections, financial reforms, environmental rules, and (poster child!) civil rights legislation. Of course these changes have not been perfect, nor immune to attacks from those holding concentrated money or power, and they've taken a lot of time and sometimes blood. But this is how our democracy works - it cannot work without our involvement. Not easy, not perfect, not fast to change/improve. That hasn't changed since its founding.

  • by whargoul (932206) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:57AM (#38537628) Homepage
    4. Nobody takes them seriously because the way they go about their protests is offensive to 99% of the people not involved in their protests.
  • by Riceballsan (816702) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:57AM (#38537632)
    It would be nice, but the question is how and who. The tea party wasn't originally founded with their heads perpetually up their respective asses. That came later and mostly once they started picking candidates, and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement. I agree OWS should form into a political party... but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.
  • by ProfBooty (172603) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:01AM (#38537670)

    They should have teamed up with the GOP instead. I know one of the OWS organizers (he handles their money) and their beliefs are surprisingly in common with the Tea party before it was co-opted by Palin and other GOP leaders.

    A biggie that they both want is less money in politics.

  • by timholman (71886) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:01AM (#38537674)

    There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored.

    And the reason they're ignored is because (surprise!) they don't have the popular support they pretend they have.

    The whole "99% vs. 1%" meme was a joke from the beginning. So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line. You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect), not by sitting in a squatter's camp and making a nuisance / laughingstock of yourself.

    The Occupy movement made entertaining press for a while, but their 15 minutes of fame is just about over. Time to move on, people.

  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:05AM (#38537712)

    Modern Progressivism and Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

    Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.

    I think your sarcasm detector is broken. If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were so great, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.

    Their ideas and policies are so bad, nobody would pay them any attention unless government made them mandatory.

    That was the whole point.

    What's that thing they say here on /.?

    Oh yeah.

    WHOOSH!!

    Strat

  • Re:1% vs 99% (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@notfo r h i r e .org> on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:07AM (#38537736)
    I find it interesting that people not impacted by them get so angry about them and what they're trying to do. I'm not defending their actions, but I really feel like every person I've heard bitch about them makes an emotionally charged statement about them.

    Do you REALLY believe there are no issues then and these people really are entitled hippies who are angry because they can't afford to get high anymore? What would you propose instead? Do you argue that there is no ever increasing disparity of wealth? Have you not seen the charts showing that "working" (even professional) wages have not increased in proportion to that of the 1%, or even really tracked with inflation?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:14AM (#38537796)
    Sure!

    1. Protest because government is too restrictive
    2. Government disbands
    3. Establish new stricter government!
  • by dristoph (1207920) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:15AM (#38537808)

    "1. It isn't working."

    The national dialogue has shifted considerably since the protests started. I haven't heard so many regular people talking about the processes of the financial system in /ever/. It put the spotlight on the biggest profiteers of the last decade of war and declining middle class. I've seen people on the left and the right start to express the cynicism toward their elected representatives that is rightly deserved.

    "2. People are getting bored."

    People were already bored. On the contrary, I've seen people who have never had an iota of interest in politics suddenly start to form opinions. It's a populist movement, and even your friend who has never cared about politics outside football at least has /something/ to say about Occupy and its issues. In this age of apathy, I see that as progress.

    "3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently."

    The arguable excessive use of police force against the protests have only amplified valid concerns about our government's protection of the Bill of Rights. The UN itself has called into question the defense of human rights in the United States, largely due to the excess use of police force against protesters in this country. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html]

    I seriously doubt that Occupy is going to bring real change...on its own. I see it more as a beginning spark. The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country, to an extent that we haven't seen in decades, maybe even this century. The impact has already taken place and the shockwave will be lasting. No matter who gets elected President and fails us yet again, the message of Occupy (and yes, the Tea Party) will continue to reverberate in the minds of conservatives and liberals alike, until we see real change.

    Occupy isn't the end, nor is it the means; it's a warning.

  • by Tim4444 (1122173) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:17AM (#38537830)

    This little exchange is representative of what's been happening in the lead up to the Republican primaries with each candidate (save for Ron Paul perhaps) trying to prove they have the biggest straw man bat.

    Of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not OWS people really represent the 99% they claim to be or why anyone would think that a technology that has thus far apparently contributed to their continued existence would suddenly need to be rebuilt from the ground up. I suppose first they'll need to invent their own Internet running on their own OS's and hardware before they can get back to protesting whatever it is that they're protesting.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:34AM (#38537988)

    The enemy is us.

    We allow banks, corporations, and the government, to make decisions for all of us, that are crap, and getting worse.

    The problem is education. All the individuals have different ideas as to what the problem is, so we argue among each other.

    Your post is a perfect example. You figured out that the government is fucked, but you're going to give the fortune 500 a pass. You're going to give Goldmans, Merril, Citi, Morgan, and all the rest, a pass.

    If all the individuals with their various "isms" attached to their beliefs, don't align on just a couple of things, we're going to lose.

    And what does losing mean? It means that while nature takes it's course, and cleans our economic clock, we'll end up poorer and less free, because of top down centralized reaction to the full stepping down of American productivity and relevance.

    It's going to happen one way or another. If we, the individuals, recognize that it's coming, and force the governments, corporations, and banks to do things that will do less harm to us, then we will lose less.

    Maybe someday, when we find solid ground, we can start again on growth. Other countries have done it. We can be great again AND responsible. Maybe not the greatest, but us being the greatest, was in large part by making a deal with the devil.

  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:35AM (#38538000) Homepage

    they don't have the popular support they pretend they have...So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line.

    So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?

    If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring, then what's your hope for motivating people to do something as boring as voting?

  • by Hatta (162192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:47AM (#38538110) Journal

    You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election

    No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.

    No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.

    (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)

    What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:58AM (#38538210) Journal

    What is a liberal or a socialist?

    It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:05AM (#38538266) Journal

    there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

    Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.

    The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).

    Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."

    However when things get better they will moderate a little.

    Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.

  • Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.
  • Re:1% vs 99% (Score:1, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:16AM (#38538364)

    the loudest complainers are red-state republican in-breeders. they are brainwashed to hate ANYTHING progressive. they want to push us into a religious-run nation and to them, rich people are the ONLY ones to 'get to heaven'. that story about fitting thru eyes of needles was just for poor folks, to give them some false hope.

    I do understand 'not getting it'; but I fail to understand the HATRED that I see from the rednecks. the protesters are trying to make things better for YOU, too, even if you don't like the person who is doing you a favor..

    the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:33AM (#38538584) Journal

    I think you just proved mine. Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal". The world is not quite so binary. Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:06PM (#38538942)

    Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".

    First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.

    Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

    Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

    Strat

  • Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

    That's not socialism, that's corporatism. I don't like either of them, but I recognize there's a big difference. By contrast, the UK's National Health Service is socialist, because the state owns everything and is the sole (or at least overwhelmingly main) provider.

    In other words, socialism isn't just the absence of a free market, it's more specific than that. And it's an important distinction, because these days corporatism is at least as large a problem and not enough people are naming it and shaming it.

  • by barjam (37372) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:30PM (#38539190)

    Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured. Are you advocating that we no longer provide emergency medical services to the uninsured?

    We already pay nearly twice what any other industrialized nation pays for health care with lower % of people covered and worse outcomes in just about every category. And yes I am familiar with all the arguments for why we have worse outcomes in the US.

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:35PM (#38539252)

    It does take time. And that is hard considering how conditioned we are for instant gratification.

    The system is well crafted and had decades to program the populace not only to embrace their chains be to defend them. You have to admire the elegance of this propaganda system that's been established. It's resilient to change, it harnesses the intellect of it's victims to perpetuate it, to defend it and to propagate it. This is nothing new, I have traced it back when I was presenting work regarding psychological warfare, as far back as we have had written history. Controlling the masses has always been a top tier priority in regards to "governing". It's rare that we see it when we are experiencing it. Mostly we have been only able to study it after the fact and from afar. If it runs contrary to our current programing it never sees the light of day just due to the natural defenses it has.

    For example we look at how the Nazis rose to power and how Stalin rose to power and how the mindsets there were cultivated and come to a fruition that allowed malevolent elements to come to power. It's easy to see their faults, but we fail to learn from these lessons because we don't apply objective reasoning and observation to our own climes.

    What I find interesting is how it harnesses the intellect of it's victims. Look at how the Nazis harnessed the brilliance of it's technically minded people. Those Germans were brilliant, but on the whole, ironically, they were political morons. You have to wonder how such intelligent people can be duped. If you can't see the brilliance in German engineering of weapons at the time, you are historically ignorant. German equipment was frankly awesome. Their tanks were something to rightfully fear, we managed to beat them out of sheer numbers. We zerged them with cheaper tanks frankly.

    Though intelligent, they were still manipulated, so intelligence isn't a safeguard against it. This is a disturbing thought, because naturally one would think an intelligent population would have immunity to it. It doesn't. In fact, as I read comments here, I see many intelligent people remarking, but to my dismay I can see the influences upon them. What I see is an emotional subset mentality that is bound to people's inner personality core. This is engaged at a subconscious level as they evaluate the situation, not formulating their intellectual responses, but it's the driving force behind their responses.

    What we are dealing with is emotional (for a lack of a better term) programing at a low level of consciousnesses. This has always been the case in the past, and it's worked in situations where it's needed to provoke people to do something that is contrary to their own good health. For example, it's often used to rally a population to war. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to get people to go fight for something that frankly has no effect upon them except in some abstract reason that effects them at some base emotion, hence steering their intellect into not only excusing it, but putting the full blunt of their being behind it.

    Granted, this is a needed thing when it comes to the overall good of a large entity of people, but when it's used to further the gains of a few, it's classically been the downfall of whatever group of people that its effected. Democracy was a fragile experiment, a seemingly vain attempt in face of this powerful influence to give the average person an objectivity and ability to rise above this kind of mindset. It succeeded to some extent because it's founding fathers were brilliant deep thinkers, hailing from a time in our country when we had the best and the brightest from Europe, here on our soil, seeking to expand not only their freedoms but their minds.

    The frontier atmosphere that allowed that kind of mindset to blossom has been smothered. There are no frontiers where the free thinking can roam now. Control has been established.

    My challenge to anyone who fancies themselves as a free thinker to try this mental exercise if you are capable

  • by daath93 (1356187) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:54PM (#38539496)
    You are guilty of brandishing the "But Republicans" paint brush broadly. Nevermind a Republican was the figure head of the Civil Rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr) while it was opposed mainly by southern Democrats (Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama). There are many Liberal Republicans and many Conservative Democrats.

    I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.

    The Conservative argument is that in America, these programs promote a wellfare state in which we make the poor complacent with "free stuff" (paid for by the rich) and they give their governors more power in exchange. That this system does not encourage people to become self sufficient and successful.

    I would further posit that progressivism is slavery in disguise, bringing me back to Martin Luther King Jr who had a dream of all americans being equal to "open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children." The point being they would be provided opportunity, not handed wellfare checks and told to sit down and shut up, the Government is here to take care of you.

    Have a nice day.
  • by kenh (9056) on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:45PM (#38540140) Homepage Journal

    Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...

    When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.

  • Re:1% vs 99% (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:49PM (#38540186)

    the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.

    I can tell who the idiots are on Slashdot. They use ad hominem attacks against broad classes of people. Slashdot idiots are not real human beings.

    Of course, I'm being sarcastic; but something tells me you're not.

    As for my own feelings on OWS, there are a lot of facets of progressivism that I favor; but I won't join OWS or have anything to do with it. Why?

    1. Actual communists and/or people toting Che Guevera posters as icons. How can anybody think that's a solution if they have any knowledge of 20th century history? Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life there.

    2. Co-opted almost immediately by public employee unions, which bankrupted the city of Vallejo and will bankrupt every city and state if they get the chance. Meanwhile, the real 99% are not only not earning union wages, but paying taxes to support the PEUs, which funnel money to Democratic candidates, which support the PEUs. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    If there were an honest-to-god movement to stop the corporations *and* the unions, a real movement against corporatocracy regardless of the flag it waves, then I'd join that. Sadly, OWS isn't it and neither is the TEA party.

    The thing that really got me about OWS was early on when they quoted a couple women who said something along the lines of "finally the Americans are being more like Europeans". This really got to me, because one of the triumphs of America is that while Europe devolved into Fascism and Communism during the 20th century, the USA was more moderate.

    What this country needs is a Theodore Roosevelt--a corporation buster but not a union man like Obama.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:59PM (#38541044) Homepage Journal

    That's all those occupunks really want. Let the hypocrisy fests begin!

    I hear ya....I keep thinking, hey couldn't all this time doing facebook pages and tweets...be better spent trying to get a fscking job...or create your own business??

    Don't get me wrong..there injustices in the world, and it is good to protest, but most of what I saw after about day x3 of the Occupy thing...was people bitching about "Banks got a bailout..where is MY bailout"? And shit like that. The protest message I got more and more was that it was a bunch of kids there with expensive macbooks and iphones with a sense of entitlement bitching about not having life handed to them on a silver plate.

    I'm sorry, but in real life for 99% of us...we don't get the easy way in, we have to work for what we want...not everyone gets a fucking trophy for just participating, and no one gives a shit about your self esteem.

    Sadly, we've raised a couple of generations of kids that have been raised this way...and now they're seeing that the real world just ain't that way. In the real world, people throw the dodgeball at you and try to knock your retainer out of your face...

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Friday December 30, 2011 @03:16PM (#38541230) Homepage Journal

    Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.

    Making them more efficient, is not a bad thing.

    But having the Federal Govt. overstep their enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to mandate what types private companies can make and sell is tyrannical.

    If someone can make more efficient light bulbs, market them and find a market for them...fine. But it isn't the governments job to make their market for them at the expense of others.

  • by pnuema (523776) on Friday December 30, 2011 @04:58PM (#38542270)
    I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job. Not only can they not find a job, the government is doing nothing to help them. The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed. It is not that they want a "bailout" - what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

Working...