richardhutnik said:
What part of Occupy Baltimore in what it wants is uniformed everywhere, as in Occupy Cleveland? I looked in the article on Occupy Cleveland and it isn't the same as Occupy Baltimore. But, you are free to believe there is some sort of uberuniformity, a uniformity that makes it impossible to understand what they want, but also is in uniformed agreement that the people in a town should not work with the authorities if you like. You can also spin it whatever way it is like, to be able to put things into your own comfortable view of the world, if you like. Constantly looking for this spin will do that, and then you can go to sleep at night, knowing you are right. Second, point out what individuals are actively excluded from the Occupy movement, where they are blacklisted and so on? Show that. Occupy movement is now global, with people from major cities around the globe. Show where active exclusion is happening. Only reason why people get excluded is because they don't want to be associated with people with different opinions. Or maybe it is just Liberals are more tolerate of diversity than conservatives, so they allow others to speak and allow for plurality. Third, you are SERIOUSLY claiming that, worldwide, there are less people in occupy movements globally than were down at Wall Street when it first started? Are you seriously claiming that? If so, you need to show it. What has been reported is that people down at Wall Street actively camping out has declined, due to the weather. However, for you to say the movement itself has less protesters than when it started, would require you to show such. Can you? |
1) I can't understand what your saying here. In gereal what the "commune style" general election votes for is very specifically what said protest group is for. In general the occupy general movements have argued for autonomy and set up their own governments... Occupy Baltimore wants rape victims to not go to the police, this is very much their motive.
2) Nothing you said is actually different from the tea party... so I'm not sure why you think it is. Well outside of Fox news getting booed away from coverying occupy. I can't remember any story of tea party people running out others.
3) No. I'm claiming that the Occupy Wallstreet movement is smaller then the Tea Party was when it started... debuning your "less people are excluded" arguement.
Worldwide can be tricky because the Occupy movements in Europe are just an extension of the anti-austerity riots that have already been going on due to Europeon citizens being unwilling to deal with decades of reckless deficit spending, but in the US....
Occupy Wallstreet is nothing but a less focused, less popular tea party. (Though it's more popular at this time, it's less popular then the tea party was at the time of it's birth. These things have a natural progression.)
Rifts are already forming among the protesters, and those with the majority view or at least in control appear to be more along the line of communal communist types which likely will lead to huge fractions. Which is kidna a problem with the whole communal system. You still do end up with leaders... who more often then not fufill their own goals. The pouring in of money to occup wallstreet is probably the worst thing that could of happened to it.
You in fact CAN say that it's official demands are silly AND it's unfocused specifically because just like Anonymous, while they SAY there are no leaders, there very clearly are people regarded as such, who have the influence, standing and position to try and shape things to fit their personal agendas.
The demands of the leaders, considered by them as official, are silly and damaging. While the larger movement is wholey unfocused and don't really know what they want.
