Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Occupying Wall Street: is there any point...

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 263 posts in this discussion
Posted on 11 Nov 2011 09:54:26 GMT
Think the best thing to happen to the tent protestors would be a night...

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 10:05:48 GMT
Molly Brown says:
I hope that doesn't happen WAE, as you'll be one of the first suspects the Police might want to interview if it does?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 10:08:05 GMT
I'd have to have magic powers for it to be me. And sadly, I don't.

Posted on 11 Nov 2011 14:34:15 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 18 Nov 2011 17:24:57 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 14:59:01 GMT
"mean, miserable and essentially vicious mind"

Quite accurate - well done.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 21:14:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2011 21:16:19 GMT
Todd Landman says:
Nice list! My own views on this can be found here:
and an early treatment that has bearing today Citizenship Rights and Social Movements: A Comparative and Statistical Analysis (Oxford Studies in Democratization)

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 05:50:13 GMT
My god man, this is an eye opening perspective.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 06:00:56 GMT
The only way those ideologies are changing is by the sword. Kill half the population, double the years we have left with our lifestyles. Kill 75%, well, you get the idea.

Oh boy it's going to get interesting before I'm dead.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 06:05:12 GMT
I think you see any opportunity. You be one.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 06:06:49 GMT
Baby steps.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 06:13:00 GMT
Molly, why so bright? I have wondered this myself. You have basically brought up a very moral dilemma. The answer that I have concluded (yet is always up for change) is the following. If he knew what would happen, then he is in the wrong, and guilty. Like you said.

But what about the reverse? How far down the chain can you go? Example. I live in America, Capitalist, my Taxes fund(in part) the military which funds the government, which decided to invade Iraq, where many innocent were killed. Now, because I KNEW that this was what was happening, does it make me guilty of invading Iraq?

In my mind, yes it does. I am as guily as soldiers who bombed them. It makes me angry when I think about it. The next question is, was it wrong to invade Iraq? This is my only defense and I have no yet come to a conclusion.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 07:40:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Nov 2011 09:06:02 GMT
Molly Brown says:
"All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing............"

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 09:44:57 GMT

What a fine calibre of people this protest contains.

"this is a movement trying to overthrow capitalism" - so they won't be getting their food from shops, or using trains/tubes/buses to get to the protest, buying their drugs from the dealer or a miriad of other examples. If they're so against Capitalism, why pay into it, why aren't they living in a Commune of equal member support and self sufficiency and reliance ?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 11:08:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 11:08:53 GMT
gille liath says:
To be fair, it isn't really possible to just 'step outside' capitalism - if only it were! It's the system, but that doesn't mean we can't want to change the system.

Having said that, I do think it undermines these people that they don't appear to have any responsibilities - or if they do (I assume this is what your article says) they're neglecting them. It's like the Fathers For Justice types who neglect seeing their kids so they can go and perform some stunt - to publicise the fact they supposedly can't see their kids. Or is it really so they can get on the telly?

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 11:29:55 GMT
S Wood says:

Ah the Daily Mail does hatchet job on the protestors in London! Who'd have thought it. I've read the article now the main basis for which seems to be The City of London Corporation and a heavy dose of innuendo ("it is reported that..."). If the protestors stay where they are from here to eternity, and act up to the Daily Mail version of reality, then they'd be doing well to do 0.01% of the damage that particular privileged little outpost of monied power known as The City has inflicted on the country.

Anyone who has ever been at an event, protest, etc reported on by the mainstream corporate media, has been reduced to wondering just where exactly the reporter has been.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 11:37:24 GMT
gille liath says:
I thought the same - but again (as with the site I quoted to you), you can't dismiss it just because of where it appeared.

"If the protestors stay where they are from here to eternity", etc - this is the usual 'two wrongs make a right' argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 11:43:19 GMT
It is possible, people have and do detach themselves to live in areas together where they rely on themselves, each other and the land to support their lifestyle rather than continue to live in a system they object to.

The article is mainly about the type of people and the state of the area they have occupied; among the reasonable protesters are drunks, drug users, a convicted sex offender, a couple of children, there's litter including animal and human waste (also in the church), cigarette ends, needles, empty cans/bottles, there has been harrassment of passerbys and church members, grafitti sprayed/etched, even some of the protesters involved are feeling unsafe due to the more unscrupulous members who have taken up there.

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 11:53:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 11:55:15 GMT
S Wood says:

It's the sense of proportion argument. Ideally i like to see things with my own eyes but a bit problematic from 500 miles away. In the absence of seeing for myself I'd regard the Daily Mail to be a very poor substitute. One example- it makes the point about it being "reported" that an individual was arrested for possession of a class A drug in "liquid form". What does "reported" mean on this occasion? I don't think it would be too tricky for the DM reporter to contact the police for verification and facts. Perhaps he-she did but reality didn't quite chime in with the DM's pre-written scenario. Given the drug (if it existed) was in "liquid form" all it may mean is that one of londons many homeless addicts who is being treated with methadone stumbled into the protest for company? Or perhaps it is just embroidered gossip?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 12:03:38 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 22:41:52 GMT
gille liath says:
It's certainly possible. But whether the stories are true (I'd certainly want some corroboration), and whether, if true, it's okay for the protesters to do such things, are two separate issues.

As you rightly point out, none of us can escape c-ism, because we all to some extent use services (health, defence, law & order, roads, social security etc) which, though provided by the state, are provided within that framework. Anyway, even leaving that aside, to get enough land to live self-sufficiently in this country is almost impossible unless you are already rich. And the reason for that is all the land bought up, either by capitalists hoping to build houses on it, or capitalists retiring to the country where they will sit on it and do nothing.

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 12:33:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 12:34:57 GMT
S Wood says:

Obviously it is not just okay if these things have happened. But i would categorically not trust the Daily Mail as a source objective facts. Not only are many of the "facts" reported of dubious provenance, there is no sense of how pervasive or common they are. Lets take the issue of the alleged sex offender, again there is no additional information on this case, what his-her offence was, how they were identified, etc. Besides that are the protestors supposed to do a Criminal Record Check on everyone who turns up, a number that must run into hundreds if not more? Anyway i gather that none of the protestors have stooped to the level of our original Daily Mail reader and advocated incendiary attacks.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 12:47:59 GMT
Well if Daily Mail is unacceptable then what about The Guardian, BBc News, Express, Telegraph, The Sun - there are many others reporting the same things. And it's not the Daily Mail who is the source, or any of the others, the source of the information is the 88 page document used to get a Court Eviction.

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 12:55:43 GMT
S Wood says:

The 88 page eviction document. That will be the one produced by the City of London who you may recall I mention in my post. Do try and pay attention.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2011 13:01:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 13:03:56 GMT
You make repeated comments on how the Daily Mail can not be trusted etc as a source - that is what my post is in response to. Maybe you should try and pay attention ?

Aside from Media, are the Social Worker(s), police involved and protester accounts also unacceptable sources for information in your eyes then?

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 13:09:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 13:10:59 GMT
S Wood says:

The Guardian report is written in an entirely different key from the Daily Mail article you cite, and makes it clear that the accusations are from the City of Londons 88 page eviction document, and does not contain some of The Daily Mails more extreme observations, eg on the presence of the sex criminal. The BBC report is likely to be of a similar tenor. As for The Daily Telegraph, The Sun and The Express, my guess is that they are of a similar tenor to the Mail - one hardly needs to be a genius to predict that.

Posted on 22 Nov 2011 13:19:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2011 13:26:01 GMT
S Wood says:

The policeman and social worker you refer to are people who the City Of London Corporation have dug up for inclusion in their 88 page eviction document, not just some random objective witnesses of the street.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Is Nigel Farage The Best Thing In Politics? Or A Dangerous Nutter Exploiting Peoples Fears? 188 18 minutes ago
Ian Paisley; The Ayatollah of the North meets his maker... 164 40 minutes ago
Here we go again...Interfering in Middle Eastern affairs which are none of our business... 101 1 hour ago
Screw you. Only I know what is best for my country... 18 10 hours ago
Is the destruction of a migrant camp on the ouskirts of Calais evidence that FRance's vote for the National Front is NOT a protest vote but an actual swing in ideology to Nazi ideals? 117 12 hours ago
Africa and the Middle East are being dragged down by religious Extremism. Europe is being dragged down by political Extremism... 17 13 hours ago
Janie's Got A Gun 26 1 day ago
UK poverty: the death of David Clapson 98 2 days ago
The Death Penalty - Time To Bring It Back To The Table?? 737 2 days ago
Cameron says IS poses a real threat on the streets of Britain. But he will not deploy troops to combat this apparent threat.. 275 3 days ago
Banned In The U.S. Amazon Forums 3900 7 days ago
Is this the end of the UK? 491 10 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  263
Initial post:  16 Oct 2011
Latest post:  9 Dec 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions