My gut likes many of the suggestions in this thread.

Sadly they would require removal of much of the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments.

/'America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship."

Silly Jesus: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

In which books can I find tales of their shiatting on police cars, breaking things and living in squalor in previously enjoyable public parks?

And so it's OK for us to paint the Tea Party with a broad brush based on the guy showing up at the president's speaking engagement with an AR-15 on his back, the racist rally signs, and ethnic slurs being yelled at Muslim familes walking into their mosques?

Rindred: Silly Jesus: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

In which books can I find tales of their shiatting on police cars, breaking things and living in squalor in previously enjoyable public parks?

And so it's OK for us to paint the Tea Party with a broad brush based on the guy showing up at the president's speaking engagement with an AR-15 on his back, the racist rally signs, and ethnic slurs being yelled at Muslim familes walking into their mosques?

I think that racist tealiban gun nut was also black, but that tidbit of information was cleverly cropped out.

super_grass: Rindred: Silly Jesus: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

In which books can I find tales of their shiatting on police cars, breaking things and living in squalor in previously enjoyable public parks?

And so it's OK for us to paint the Tea Party with a broad brush based on the guy showing up at the president's speaking engagement with an AR-15 on his back, the racist rally signs, and ethnic slurs being yelled at Muslim familes walking into their mosques?

I think that racist tealiban gun nut was also black, but that tidbit of information was cleverly cropped out.

there was a comma between those two...

super_grass: I think that racist tealiban gun nut was also black, but that tidbit of information was cleverly cropped out.

Awwww, cute, you think there's just one. I didn't know home schools also offered news services.

Teiritzamna:
So success here is a bit of an odd thing to figure out. The problem, for Occupy, is that the teahadis actually elected people. Ass-numbingly stupid, country destroying people. but still - they can say that their movement actually caused substantive changes to American law and politics.

The teahadis got to elect people due to one factor - low voter turnout in off election years. Consider that this is one of the reasons why the republicans want voter turnout to remain low this november, and are using any means necessary to do so. There will always be a core group of old white men and their stepford wives who will always, always, always vote in every election, no matter how local or meaningless.

Republicans count on that core group, supplemented by any other single issue moron voter they can get their claws into. Fear, ignorance, racism, all these and more are great tools to get those suscepible to them to the polls, much more than knowledge, altruism, intelligence and acceptance will ever be.

It wasn't the 'bagger strength that did it, it was the apathy of everyone else. Elections are determined by the people who show up.

rewind2846: It wasn't the 'bagger strength that did it, it was the apathy of everyone else. Elections are determined by the people who show up.

I am not attempting to suggest that teatards are a great strong movement, but you and i are arguing kind of the same thing: the tea party actually caused substantive political changes, the Occupy movement has not. If that is the rubric of comparison (and i am not saying it should be) then Occupy was not as "successful." This may have something to do with the fact that the tea party is a mostly AstroTurfed movement to push far right agendas that picked up angry people rather than a bunch of angry people who decided to try a movement.

However, since in a representative democracy getting people to show up to vote is much of the point of political action, i can see arguments that Occupy could have been more effective.

47 is the new 42: FALSE. The 53% derives from Federal Income Taxes. If a person has a job, even if it is just part-time and they are on food stamps, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, this may be listed as FICA on one's paycheck stub). Depending on the state and locality, they may even pay state and local income and sales taxes.

Right, but the argument is in regards to federal income taxes and people participating in Federal programs and drawing more out of them versus what they contribute. The payroll tax funds medicare and SS. It does (Should) not fund the day to day operations of our federal government. When it comes to federal income tax, the 53% line is correct.

When you have $3,400 withheld throughout the year and "get back" $5,000 in EITC, Child credits and are on SNAP (federal program), you are not a net taxpayer, Thus you receive more than you contribute. A person who gets back more than what they pay in, even if they paid $10,000 and got back $11,000 is not a taxpayer.

BeesNuts
AAAAAnd.... bookmarked. Should I finish Don Quixote... or start this and come back to the magnificent man of la mancha later?

Read a paragraph, then read an entire other book, repeat.

Rindred: Silly Jesus: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

In which books can I find tales of their shiatting on police cars, breaking things and living in squalor in previously enjoyable public parks?

And so it's OK for us to paint the Tea Party with a broad brush based on the guy showing up at the president's speaking engagement with an AR-15 on his back, the racist rally signs, and ethnic slurs being yelled at Muslim familes walking into their mosques?

Sure, why not?

Joe Blowme: j
Especially since we learned the 1% pay more taxes than the 99%

They own more of the wealth than the 99%, so why not?

My goodness the dumb has spread, those who don't see OWS as sucessful. It was a movement meant to catalyze the participation of a much larger group of people who's day to day influence cannot possibly be zero, and could easily be "significant". The message was simple: "Get money out of politics".

Yes, that means lobbyists, and banks, and the 1%; that phrase represents everything else OWS wanted, in a single, easy-to-swallow single sentence.

If you didn't understand that, you didn't WANT to understand that. I know, some of you are a little more cocksure then others, but not a single one of you wants to get cockpunched by a technical elite that leaves you helpless. You cling to your guns.. your freedom. You know why? Because no matter what you think..... you are the 99%, too.

If the "conservatives" around here were really conservative, they'd be cheering legalizing gay marriage - who the hell wants the government in your house? What we have here are hawks and zealots, nothing more

rewind2846: Joe Blowme: j
Especially since we learned the 1% pay more taxes than the 99%

They own more of the wealth than the 99%, so why not?

Because they don't consume more of the services that the taxes pay for than the 99%.

Mambo Bananapatch: OCW succeeded to the extent that I went from dismissing them as smelly losers to wishing I had the balls to join them, partly after reading this:

What the protesters are on about

I don't see how you can watch that and not be angry. While OCW was unable to completely dismantle the free market system, they certainly provoked some awareness.

Anyway, subby, how can you say they "didn't succeed" when they had "no clear aims or goals"?

I read the link and I also read the comments section, could someone please take a shot at this?:

"Nick on Oct 11, 2:28 PM said:
@TheD: Facts are fun to get fired up about but you'll find that often the people most fired up have put little to no critical thought as to WHY the facts are what they are. I will address some of these now.

RECORD CEO PAY
The baby boom was the greatest generation americans have ever seen. They led the biggest surge in entrepreneurialism in out history and have for years sat at the helms of the companies they started. But now they are getting old, they have made their money and they want to retire. So what do they do? They hire a CEO to run their business while they go golf (they earned it before you go off crucifying them). They want the best and the brightest and the surge in demand made it very competitive in rounding up the talent to successfully manage the business you built with you blood sweat and tears. CEO's aren't banking because they are stealing, they are banking because entrepreneurs are fighting over them.

THE BAILOUT
The bailout while unsavory and hard to stomach was not to meant to keep banks lending, it was to keep them afloat so there was not a run on deposits. We had trillions in deposits and only a fraction actually kept in reserves. Had there been a bank run it would have made the great depression look like a day at the spa. The banks buying securitized CDO's where the ones most responsible for the financial crisis (besides the deadbeat borrowers who figured that if their house was worth less than what they owed they got a free pass not to pay). Did they got a bailout? NO! Lehman and Merrill are gone. Failed. Poof. Vanished. The institutions that DID get bailed out (namely AIG which is not a bank) were bailed out to stop armaggedon . This leads me to my last point

TAX EQUALITY
People scream about the taxpayer money bailing out banks and totally ignore that the people who paid the most in taxes toward that bailout were the bankers themselves. Thats right, the 1% pays the most taxes. How can the people who contributed the least to the bailout gripe about it the most?

The most telling slid Henry put up is slide #26. Pleas notice that the only demographic paying a higher % of the countries taxes than they represent of the countries wealth are the top 1%. Everyone else has more wealth than they pay. The rich don't pay their fair share? Spare me. They pay the biggest and most disproportionately large share of anyone."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angr y-about-2011-10?op=1#ixzz26lS2PNN5

Xenomech: A year later, the media wonders why a leaderless organization with no clear aims or goals that modeled protests after homeless encampments didn't succeed
Maybe the unprecedented coordinated attacks on the movement by city leaders had something to do with it?

Look, if we didn't beat the hippies, they'd have nothing coherent to complain about.

Focus, people, focus!

To those who don't see OWS as sucessful. It was a movement meant to catalyze the participation of a much larger group of people who's day to day influence cannot possibly be zero, and could easily be "significant". The message was simple: "Get money out of politics".

Yes, that means lobbyists, and banks, and the 1%; that phrase represents everything else OWS wanted, in a single, easy-to-swallow single sentence.

If you didn't understand that, you didn't WANT to understand that. I know, some of you are a little more cocksure then others, but not a single one of you wants to get cockpunched by a technical elite that leaves you helpless. You cling to your guns.. your freedom. You know why? Because no matter what you think..... you are the 99%, too.

If the "conservatives" around here were really conservative, they'd be cheering legalizing gay marriage - who the hell wants the government in your house? What we have here are hawks and zealots, nothing more

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Joe Blowme: j
Especially since we learned the 1% pay more taxes than the 99%

They own more of the wealth than the 99%, so why not?

Because they don't consume more of the services that the taxes pay for than the 99%.

I'm not super rich but when we hire people I am indirectly benefiting from the services that were provided to them.

Teiritzamna: rewind2846: It wasn't the 'bagger strength that did it, it was the apathy of everyone else. Elections are determined by the people who show up.

I am not attempting to suggest that teatards are a great strong movement, but you and i are arguing kind of the same thing: the tea party actually caused substantive political changes, the Occupy movement has not. If that is the rubric of comparison (and i am not saying it should be) then Occupy was not as "successful." This may have something to do with the fact that the tea party is a mostly AstroTurfed movement to push far right agendas that picked up angry people rather than a bunch of angry people who decided to try a movement.

However, since in a representative democracy getting people to show up to vote is much of the point of political action, i can see arguments that Occupy could have been more effective.

The tealiban had two advantages - messages that could fit on a bumper sticker (of course that's all their brains could hold), which made them the perfect choice for single issue voters, and the assistance of the republican machine bot tn front of and behind the scenes. Having an entire network and millions of dollars in free rallies and advertisement (thanks FoxNoise) didn't hurt either.

The goals of OWS were diverse, complicated and not easily boiled down to a mass of grease and suet to be smeared across a sign in an easily recognizable fashion. They had to do with solving complicated problems and issues, and most could never be as simple as "dem homogays be evil cuz the bible sez so".
Complicated makes the slow peoples heads hurt. Simple makes them feel good because assimilation and understanding is nearly instantaneous, and makes them feel as if they actually have a grasp on things, especially when they don't.

You know some of this stuff has been festering for decades, in some cases longer than many of the protesters have even been alive. People have been taught not to think and reason, and those who actively do think and reason, like some college kids, are dismissed out of hand for being naive idealists and radicals.
"As long as it don't affect me" is the old/new mantra of the masses, repeated ad nauseam by those who see any disruption in the status quo, a place where they are fed and clothed and can watch their monday night football on their flat panel tv in their look-all-the-same suburbs, as a threat.

They don't feel like they're getting fu(ked, so they choose to deride those that realize that they are and protest against that intrusion.

Headso: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Joe Blowme: j
Especially since we learned the 1% pay more taxes than the 99%

They own more of the wealth than the 99%, so why not?

Because they don't consume more of the services that the taxes pay for than the 99%.

I'm not super rich but when we hire people I am indirectly benefiting from the services that were provided to them.

That's a bit of a stretch...

Also, the rich are capable of being rich without having many (or any) employees whose tax benefits trickle up.

RevMark: SageC: super_grass: SageC:
That enough effort for you, motherfarker?
That speaks more about vets in general than OWS since he is a special case.
And considering that most veterans are overwhelmingly in the TEA Party/Ron Paul camp, no.
Oh...
[www.airforcetimes.com image 800x533]
[www.nationofchange.org image 480x288]
[www.thenation.com image 615x410]
[towleroad.typepad.com image 480x262]
...RLY?
You found 4 pics on the Internet showing veterans at OWS protests.

Well that does it... you've proven your point and shown everyone up. You are the Final Boss of the Internet.

Hey everybody... you can move along now. Thread closed.

Can you teach the rest of us your awesome Internetting skillz?

Yes.
Step 1:
You start with the original message:
or they failed because any dumb chimpanzee can simply lay on the street.
/Put some effort into it.
Step 2:
Show a great example of someone contradicting the claim.
Step 3:
Wait for backlash and enjoy the whining rhetoric.
Step 4:
Repeat steps 2 and 3.

Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

Thoreau was an anti-social crank and are you really comparing OWS to the civil rights movement?

cybernia: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

Thoreau was an anti-social crank and are you really comparing OWS to the civil rights movement?

The "technique" (if you want to call it that) of using civil disobedience to draw attention to a perceived injustice or cause is the one thing. This does not equate one cause/injustice with another in importance and/or severity. As an example, I can hit something with a hammer. That's a technique. If the cause is "I'm building a doghouse, so I'm hammering some nails into wood," that's one thing; if it's "My neighbor pissed me off again so I struck him in the head 20 times with a hammer," that's quite another.

Madbassist1: Agreed. We should get rid of those states who suck more out of the federal gov. than they put in!!! We'd never have another repub president, I can go for that.

Or, you just restore the federal government to its constitutional limits where states arent sending money to the federal government and then trying to lobby back for them for local issues.

Every taxpayer, save for the disabled and utterly penniless should send money for the operation of courts, protection of intellectual property and the military. The "General welfare" is paid for by all, and benefits all - or at least it should

rawbert7: I read the link and I also read the comments section, could someone please take a shot at this?:

Sure. Why not?

rawbert7: RECORD CEO PAY
The baby boom was the greatest generation americans have ever seen. They led the biggest surge in entrepreneurialism in out history and have for years sat at the helms of the companies they started. But now they are getting old, they have made their money and they want to retire. So what do they do? They hire a CEO to run their business while they go golf (they earned it before you go off crucifying them). They want the best and the brightest and the surge in demand made it very competitive in rounding up the talent to successfully manage the business you built with you blood sweat and tears. CEO's aren't banking because they are stealing, they are banking because entrepreneurs are fighting over them.

If this were true, then we would see or have a problem with the fact that CEOs sit on each other's Board of Directors, and they wouldn't be voting themselves raises. If this were true, we wouldn't be seeing large payouts for CEOs who crash companies; millions upon millions of "bonuses" for CEOs who miserably failed. When capitalism runs honestly (is that possible?), competition brings the best up to the top and those who lie and cheat fall. We're not seeing competition, we're seeing buddies helping each other get rich at the expense of everyone else - including the companies they run. This is a nice sentiment to hold, but reality just doesn't jive with it.

rawbert7: The bailout while unsavory and hard to stomach was not to meant to keep banks lending, it was to keep them afloat so there was not a run on deposits. We had trillions in deposits and only a fraction actually kept in reserves. Had there been a bank run it would have made the great depression look like a day at the spa. The banks buying securitized CDO's where the ones most responsible for the financial crisis (besides the deadbeat borrowers who figured that if their house was worth less than what they owed they got a free pass not to pay). Did they got a bailout? NO! Lehman and Merrill are gone. Failed. Poof. Vanished. The institutions that DID get bailed out (namely AIG which is not a bank) were bailed out to stop armaggedon . This leads me to my last point

This kind of makes sense, as a major problem with the Great Depression was that people lost money because the banks couldn't pay out. But to claim that it wasn't to let the banks keep lending is disingenuous. That's how it was sold to the American people. Did the banks do that? No, they paid their failing CEOs and made loans to the gov't while at the same time borrowing more from the Fed (interest rates for borrowing from the Fed was less than the interest rates loaning that same money back to the gov't). Heck, this guy's own link shows that. Strange how he conveniently ignores it. I also like how he claims that AIG was not a bank, when the laws changed in 1999 to allow investment firms to become banks at the same time (one of the problems tangentially noted in his link, and something the OWS people were mad about) - also, look it up on google; it's called AIG Bank.

rawbert7: People scream about the taxpayer money bailing out banks and totally ignore that the people who paid the most in taxes toward that bailout were the bankers themselves. Thats right, the 1% pays the most taxes. How can the people who contributed the least to the bailout gripe about it the most?

Let's follow this line of logic. People claim that 53% of the country do not pay taxed, because of rebates. If the banks are part of the 1%, and they're getting the bailouts, does that mean they're not actually paying taxes? So I guess the banks are part of the worthless 53% who don't contribute to society. I'd continue, but my heart just isn't in it today.

Rindred: cybernia: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

Thoreau was an anti-social crank and are you really comparing OWS to the civil rights movement?

The "technique" (if you want to call it that) of using civil disobedience to draw attention to a perceived injustice or cause is the one thing. This does not equate one cause/injustice with another in importance and/or severity. As an example, I can hit something with a hammer. That's a technique. If the cause is "I'm building a doghouse, so I'm hammering some nails into wood," that's one thing; if it's "My neighbor pissed me off again so I struck him in the head 20 times with a hammer," that's quite another.

Yeah, the civil rights movement was more important. If OWS had been the actual people that were being foreclosed on, laid off due to outsourcing, etc, then maybe, yeah it would have had the same gravitas. The civil rights movement civil disobedience was done by the actual people that were directly affected by it. They were being denied their basic human rights. OWS is strictly political movement. The 1% may control the situation but they don't prevent people from being able to sit at a lunch counter or use any bathroom they want.

cybernia: Rindred: cybernia: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

Thoreau was an anti-social crank and are you really comparing OWS to the civil rights movement?

The "technique" (if you want to call it that) of using civil disobedience to draw attention to a perceived injustice or cause is the one thing. This does not equate one cause/injustice with another in importance and/or severity. As an example, I can hit something with a hammer. That's a technique. If the cause is "I'm building a doghouse, so I'm hammering some nails into wood," that's one thing; if it's "My neighbor pissed me off again so I struck him in the head 20 times with a hammer," that's quite another.

Yeah, the civil rights movement was more important. If OWS had been the actual people that were being foreclosed on, laid off due to outsourcing, etc, then maybe, yeah it would have had the same gravitas. The civil rights movement civil disobedience was done by the actual people that were directly affected by it. They were being denied their basic human rights. OWS is strictly political movement. The 1% may control the situation but they don't prevent people from being able to sit at a lunch counter or use any bathroom they want.

Is that how it works? The 1% can manipulate the market to increase their own personal wealth by the millions while causing hundreds of thousands of people to lose their homes and their jobs, but as long as us poor schmucks not prevented from using the same bathroom as a person of another color, it's ok.

LookForTheArrow: My goodness the dumb has spread, those who don't see OWS as sucessful. It was a movement meant to catalyze the participation of a much larger group of people who's day to day influence cannot possibly be zero, and could easily be "significant". The message was simple: "Get money out of politics".

The problem is, the messengers were not good at communicating the message. The Occupiers with whom I engaged had 9-10 different causes all going at once, and with no organizational leadership, all the demands were equally poorly communicated. When I advised the Occupiers to trim down their list and focus on 1 or 2 to really market to the general public, I was instructed to to "check" my "privilege."

mgshamster: cybernia: Rindred: cybernia: Rindred: I see we still have some Teatards around the thread who are still unclear on the concept of "civil disobedience." May I suggest you do a bit of reading up on Henry David Thoreau and MLK?

Thoreau was an anti-social crank and are you really comparing OWS to the civil rights movement?

The "technique" (if you want to call it that) of using civil disobedience to draw attention to a perceived injustice or cause is the one thing. This does not equate one cause/injustice with another in importance and/or severity. As an example, I can hit something with a hammer. That's a technique. If the cause is "I'm building a doghouse, so I'm hammering some nails into wood," that's one thing; if it's "My neighbor pissed me off again so I struck him in the head 20 times with a hammer," that's quite another.

Yeah, the civil rights movement was more important. If OWS had been the actual people that were being foreclosed on, laid off due to outsourcing, etc, then maybe, yeah it would have had the same gravitas. The civil rights movement civil disobedience was done by the actual people that were directly affected by it. They were being denied their basic human rights. OWS is strictly political movement. The 1% may control the situation but they don't prevent people from being able to sit at a lunch counter or use any bathroom they want.

Is that how it works? The 1% can manipulate the market to increase their own personal wealth by the millions while causing hundreds of thousands of people to lose their homes and their jobs, but as long as us poor schmucks not prevented from using the same bathroom as a person of another color, it's ok.

Again, how many OWS protesters are the ones who lost their homes and jobs? Was it a Hooverville like in the Depression? Nope. It was mostly dumbass activists that just wanted to be a part of something. It's not a working class movement. I was down at Zucotti almost every day. They had the momentum and they could have taken their show on the road, back to their communities and worked for change. Instead, they sat in their squalid conditions and blew it with their drum circles and human megaphones. It became more about themselves than actually trying to effect change.

iheartscotch: 1. SuperPacs be declared illegal.

Sure, when you're king of the world.

Under the United States, system, that's free speech you're talking about.

Soymilk: When I advised the Occupiers to trim down their list and focus on 1 or 2 to really market to the general public, I was instructed to to "check" my "privilege."

That's because more than 1 or 2 needed fixing. When there is s burst pipe in the basement, and earthquake going on outside, a tornado coming up the block, and an electrical fire upstairs you don't just "focus on 1 or 2".

Once again, there's a lot of sh*t that needs to be fixed. The teahadists had but a few things on their plate, most having to do with "birf certifcts", the national debt, and taxes, which made it so much easier to pick one and stick with it. They didn't ask for a lot of things, they just asked for a few things very loudly. The needs of the simple are simply met.

Those in the OWS movement saw the breadth of issues in american society that needed to be addressed, and put those on the table. It's just unfortunate that much of the "general public" has the attention span of goldfish, coupled with the "if it ain't affecting me I don't care" syndrome, and they could not absorb all of what they were given to think about. 

Tiny little sound bites, OK
The whole steak plus potatoes, No.

TV's Vinnie: I've always wonder how much of those window-smashing dickbags were actually planted agents assigned to gain intel as well as trigger violent events for the cops to get all bashy-bashy about.

Too much effort. At the OWS event today, the NYPD told people to get off the sidewalk and stand on the street, then arrested them for standing in the street.

rewind2846: Those in the OWS movement saw the breadth of issues in american society that needed to be addressed, and put those on the table. It's just unfortunate that much of the "general public" has the attention span of goldfish

You are responsible for the message you are trying to send. Not the audience. Ideas that are heard are the ones that are clearly communicated. Insulting the audience won't get them to listen to you harder. This is what I told the Occupiers I was talking to, but they insisted that if their audience doesn't understand it's because they're "sheep". Yeah, good luck getting support there.

Geotpf: The problem was that they were protesting for the sake of protesting. They had no leadership, no set of demands, no legislation they wanted passed. Nobody was in charge and they never wanted anything specific. So, geez, I guess they got what they were asking for-which was nothing.

You're wrong on all counts, but you highlight the main problem with OWS: they treat the common man as if they're intelligent. They aren't.

Orwell had it right:

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflection of the voice, at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it ? And yet - !

What OWS failed and still fails to understand is that you can't get the proles on your side by handing out a laundry list of grievances. People are dumb and need to be spoonfed, they need everything dumbed down. PETA makes their message clear, I don't agree with them on most of their stances, but they've made their stances clear through their PR stunts and advertising.

They also need a face to rally behind. MLK didn't lead the movement alone but he was the face of the movement. He was a rallying point, someone people could make an emotional connection with. OWS feels threatened by that concept, thinking that focusing on one person devalues their efforts as a group.

If OWS wants to achieve more, they need to learn how to market themselves better.

Madbassist1: o5iiawah: 47 is the new 42: FALSE. The 53% derives from Federal Income Taxes. If a person has a job, even if it is just part-time and they are on food stamps, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, this may be listed as FICA on one's paycheck stub). Depending on the state and locality, they may even pay state and local income and sales taxes.

Right, but the argument is in regards to federal income taxes and people participating in Federal programs and drawing more out of them versus what they contribute. The payroll tax funds medicare and SS. It does (Should) not fund the day to day operations of our federal government. When it comes to federal income tax, the 53% line is correct.

When you have $3,400 withheld throughout the year and "get back" $5,000 in EITC, Child credits and are on SNAP (federal program), you are not a net taxpayer, Thus you receive more than you contribute. A person who gets back more than what they pay in, even if they paid $10,000 and got back $11,000 is not a taxpayer.

Agreed. We should get rid of those states who suck more out of the federal gov. than they put in!!! We'd never have another repub president, I can go for that.

I'm not sure but I think you might have the opposite. I know Texas is a net tax contributing state. Repub states tend to have low taxes and low services. You have to factor in state taxes as well.

Headso: 47 is the new 42: olddinosaur: The problem here is, the top 10% of the taxpayers already pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 53% pay nothing at all.

FALSE. The 53% derives from Federal Income Taxes. If a person has a job, even if it is just part-time and they are on food stamps, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, this may be listed as FICA on one's paycheck stub). Depending on the state and locality, they may even pay state and local income and sales taxes.

I corrected him right away and he didn't acknowledge it, pretty sure he'll ignore you too. That way he can come in an lie again.

That's what I get for not ready the entire thread before posting.

o5iiawah: 47 is the new 42: FALSE. The 53% derives from Federal Income Taxes. If a person has a job, even if it is just part-time and they are on food stamps, they do pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, this may be listed as FICA on one's paycheck stub). Depending on the state and locality, they may even pay state and local income and sales taxes.

Right, but the argument is in regards to federal income taxes and people participating in Federal programs and drawing more out of them versus what they contribute. The payroll tax funds medicare and SS. It does (Should) not fund the day to day operations of our federal government. When it comes to federal income tax, the 53% line is correct.

When you have $3,400 withheld throughout the year and "get back" $5,000 in EITC, Child credits and are on SNAP (federal program), you are not a net taxpayer, Thus you receive more than you contribute. A person who gets back more than what they pay in, even if they paid $10,000 and got back $11,000 is not a taxpayer.

Don't move the goal posts. The original poster stated "pay nothing at all," which is false. Now if he said "federal income taxes," it would be closer to the truth.

47 is the new 42: Don't move the goal posts. The original poster stated "pay nothing at all," which is false. Now if he said "federal income taxes," it would be closer to the truth.

It isn't my fault people moved their own goalposts.

yes, "Pay nothing at all" is false but there's always someone who will chime back "buh-buh- sales tax!!" when having a discussion about who pays what in federal income tax

tirob: Xenomech: A year later, the media wonders why a leaderless organization with no clear aims or goals that modeled protests after homeless encampments didn't succeed
Maybe the unprecedented coordinated attacks on the movement by city leaders had something to do with it?

By the time the "attacks" you write of happened, public opinion had turned against #Occupy almost everywhere. #Occupy had developed a habit of blocking streets and engaging in other actions which inconvenienced a lot of people, 99 percent of whom were--well--in the 99 percent. The lesson here is not to alienate the people whom you claim to represent.

Occupy's hard left core never grasped this part. To have a political movement, you actually have to have support of those outside your little core group.

RanDomino: Patriots:
www.boston-tea-party.org

Go ahead. Go read some history. Tell me how the Boston Tea Party was regarded back then.

I'll give you a hint: Not well. In any event they were protesting against government not screaming for government to come run their lives for them.

Oh and to sum up OWS?

Generation_D: tirob: Xenomech: A year later, the media wonders why a leaderless organization with no clear aims or goals that modeled protests after homeless encampments didn't succeed
Maybe the unprecedented coordinated attacks on the movement by city leaders had something to do with it?

By the time the "attacks" you write of happened, public opinion had turned against #Occupy almost everywhere. #Occupy had developed a habit of blocking streets and engaging in other actions which inconvenienced a lot of people, 99 percent of whom were--well--in the 99 percent. The lesson here is not to alienate the people whom you claim to represent.

Occupy's hard left core never grasped this part. To have a political movement, you actually have to have support of those outside your little core group.

They did, at first, which is one reason why local authorities everywhere by and large let the #Occupiers do their thing for a while. #Occupy frittered this support away, however.

randomjsa: RanDomino: Patriots:
www.boston-tea-party.org

Go ahead. Go read some history. Tell me how the Boston Tea Party was regarded back then.

I'll give you a hint: Not well. In any event they were protesting against government not screaming for government to come run their lives for them.

Well, no, or not exactly, anyway. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a too-cozy relationship between a private company (the East India Company) and the Crown; the thought was that both were unfairly benefiting themselves at the expense of both consumers of tea and those American businessmen whom the Crown forbade from buying tea from the competing Dutch VOC.

RanDomino: BeesNuts
AAAAAnd.... bookmarked. Should I finish Don Quixote... or start this and come back to the magnificent man of la mancha later?

Read a paragraph, then read an entire other book, repeat.

lol. Gotcha.