There's been a lot of discourse about the connection between government and business, about how if our government is in any way going to pretend it isn't a bundle of hypocrisy it should hold bankers accountable, etc. I'm honestly surprised you haven't seen any of it, even if it is correct to assume you haven't looked too deep into the movement.
You are assuming I haven't seen it. You could have saved yourself a bunch of words by asking me the question directly.
What I am saying is that people seem to associate corruption solely with the Republican party, as if the democrats have been completely devoid of any sort of corruption.
Then I think it's alright to assume you haven't looked too deeply if you've only seen people talking about the big bad Republicans.
I suppose it would be too late to point out that their protesting do not really accomplish anything. Did it bring any more attention to what was already widely known? No, since most of what the OWS was protesting about has already been said by the Tea Party a year prior.
Neat-o's. I guess that's why we're talking in "The Tea Party Educates All!" thread, right? That's also why the Tea Party was/is a global movement, with supporters even in communist countries, right? That's also why the Tea Party was able to get all of its information out without the help of mass media, right?
Oh wait...
However, simply acknowledging that should also lead one to conclude that if Wall Street is to blame, then were was a major failing on the part of the government to not protect the citizenry; such a failing may or may not be forgiven, but if the government does not place new restrictions or takes measures to prevent such action in the future or does not hold accountable those at fault, then opinion of the government will probably be much worse.
The government isn't going to police itself. That is akin to asking a criminal to watch a bank and set policy, his salary, etc.
The very same government that let this whole mess take place, and you would rather let them police themselves is not going to produce the results you are looking for. Government officials only answer to a motivated voting public that is not afraid to toss their asses out the next election if they fuck up.
Look at what the Tea Party did the last senatorial election.
... Okay? Did you actually read what I said, you know, about the whole "opinion of the government"? When you've got a "motivated voting public" that's saying "REGULATE OR WE'RE THROWING YOU OUT OF OFFICE", then, you know, we're on the same page here.
The Tea Party is a political party that is backed by citizens who actually want to see change happen in the Government. I suggest you read up on them.
You assume I haven't read up on them. At first I was all like "Wowzerz, they are actually trying to change things, it's closer to a populous movement!" Then I was like "Ohz, they are pretty much a redefinition of Republicans with more political brainwashing and theocratic policies." Disagree with me all you want here, I highly doubt you'll change my opinion of them.
The only thing I really like about them is their liberal (Ha!) application of the right to bear arms; however, I dislike the attitude in which they exercise it.
So why the need to illegally occupy public
Wasn't illegal when they started doing it. Public officials began using reactionary methods to deal with them.
I suppose it depends on what the laws say regarding the use of public property (Anybody knowledgeable about this please correct me if I am wrong!). I believe there are laws regarding assembling for a specific amount of time to protest in a public place. This would involve buying permits to do so, since I have read about the Tea Party demanding their money back for paying for permits to protest in the cities where the OWS protested later and the same local governments didn't press them for anything.
This brought up a lot of issues, though. I think a big case can be made about how it's unconstitutional if there's a time limit set for protests. To me, that sounds too much like justified oppression. If you've got a major protest, and it's not going away,
there's a problem, and instead of trying to fix the problem, you fix the protests. Constitutionally, a group should be able to protest as long as they want. A semi-permanent protest is a clear sign that something is wrong to begin with, especially if the protest is large enough to prevent other members of the public from using public areas.
around the country?
... I'm not even sure how to address that. Are you ignoring logistics, the lack of a central base of power for the OWS, the need to be public with the protests, etc.?
From what I have read, it appears the OWS is actually more about a leaderless, more horizontal structure (ie: more indians, less chiefs) which allows them to be somewhat flexible in what they do.
The OWS protests are going on around the country (even the world.. Occupy Grand Prairie, WTF?), yes.. Oakland and NYC are the two biggest places where they have taken hold. Nearly every other city has varying degrees to how many people are protesting.
Right... but putting that in the question you asked seemed like asking "Why are they everywhere and not in one central place?", which you pretty much just answered yourself there.
And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later?
And let us not forget, the OWS, since it started, protested continuously about exactly what SalmonGod stated. Occupy Congress was an event that was held when it seemed that such a gathering might be feasible.
Again, so why did it take them so long to actually figure out what to protest about?
The individuals knew what to protest about; essentially, anything and everything they didn't like, as long as they also thought Wall Street was in the wrong for the economic state of the country/world (it was Occupy Wall Street, after all).
They did not establish a "general assembly" until a few weeks into the protest.
Because they needed to see how many people showed up. If there were just going to be fifteen, they could figure it out themselves. Since there was a -lot- more than that, then they had to start organizing even more. Since this is a leaderless movement, even the organization had to happen rather democratically, which slowed things down, and not everyone's cut out to organize a large group of people. It's honestly no surprise it took them that long.
Which contradicts their stated goal as being a leaderless organization.
In what way? As in my above post, it's perfectly possible with being a leaderless organization.
Which means that nobody could have been protesting for the same thing until they all agreed on what to actually protest about, or establish any of this group-think mentality.
Except they were. The entrance fee was pretty much "Protest about Wall Street." They just also had a lot more to protest about, especially as they started getting either no press or horribly bias press (that is, now they had great reason to protest the press). The most reliable news outlet at the time, if I recall correctly, was Russia Today. I find that pretty funny/ironic.
This is why the whole thing was aimed at Wall Street in general before they actually realized that Obama is an empty suit and started demanding government rid itself of corruption (which as I have pointed out earlier, is rather bizarre).
As if you're saying that now the entire protest is against Obama, which it isn't (to my knowledge anyway). You also have to take into account the possible violation of the Constitution by setting a limit on protesting (protest-worthy), police violence (protest-worthy), public policy decisions being made at the time (protest-worthy) and a growing education about what really happened during the bail-out (which got more people protesting against the government).
Unless you're saying that demanding government rid itself of corruption is bizarre, in which case, yeah, I agree with you. However, demanding that is the first step. The next step, if no one's going to change for you, is to force that change yourself.
You should seriously do your homework on this before making such claims.
I would like to think that I know enough about it to educate you on what it really is. But then again, opinions are like assholes and everybody has two!
I don't know, I think I'm educating you on what it's really about, not the other way around.
