"Occupy" Superthread

I didn't hear anyone complaining a few years ago when the economy was going great, at this point the occupy movement is looking for a scapegoat for why they are unemployed. Also STOP trying to connect the libertarian movement with the occupy movement, both hate crony capitalism and that's it. The idea of how to stop crony capitalism and all things following run totally opposite. For example the student loan problem, find me one libertarian that would demand free collage. There are none because collage would be considered an service you would have to pay for.

So you think protesting the banks who got trillions of dollars of taxpayers money, and protesting crony capitalism is not worthy of a libertarian's time? I thought the libertarians hated people taking their moneys?!

Do the words "vague" and "uninspired" mean anything to you?

No shit.....

I'd hardly call Wall Street a scapegoat, considering they're the ones running the economic show around here.

Like it or not Randroids are part of the movement. They have their reasons and Social Libs have theirs, but the point is Libertarians are present.

You didn't read the whole thing did you? The idea of how to stop crony capitalism is not unified. Do you want more regulation or less? A repel of citizens united may not be wanted by libertarians (ask Ron Paul what he
thinks about that ruling) but the left leaning protesters would love the idea.
reintroducing Glass-Stiegall would be loved by the left wing but hated by the
right. Do you see what I'm saying? Having one thing in common does not
make you best buddies.

Because the protesters are being intentionally ambiguous, getting into the finer point of "how" would only alienate the libertarians, not that this was a unified protest to begin with but a bunch of smaller protests cobbled together and givin press attention because of a mace happy cop.

Yes but that doesn't stop you protesting because you agree with the movement's message. The movement is not about how, but what.

Good because I need people shouting that their angry. Not offering solutions just that their angry. Their in this thing for the t-shirts not actual results. They will put make up on and dance in a drum circle but an economic idea is asking too much of these people. Figures that I hate the protest my generation pins it's identity to, in the 60's we had civil rights, and Vietnam. But now it's just I'm going to be angry at the rich guy. Give me a few years and I'll just run for office or drive to New York and just hijack the movement I dont know yet.

I'd argue that the hippies were just as bad, but they were more organized.

2/3s of Americans support fairer distribution of wealth. It's not just one generation. It's America. Also Occupy Wall Street has pretty much twice the support that the Tea Party does. Congress approval is 9%. People are legitimately angry that politicians aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing.

What people think Congress should be doing.

More equal distribution? As opposed to what? Unequal distribution? How was the question posed, was it voluntary response? I've taken a stats class and these are things you have to ask I also don't know what "more equal distribution of wealth" entails. The teaparty puts more boots on the ground and that's all that matters, the occupy movement has about 10,000 protesters nationwide and a bunch of people on the Internet telling you their problems with a sad face. As for the 9% approval rating, great people are mad now what? Saying I'm mad solves no more than sitting in a circle doing sing-a-longs. I don't care about the problems I care about the solutions because that's where the change takes place. You can keep your slogans and I'll just listen do economists debate.

[yt:1qjq5dr0]kOSb810x9rk[/yt:1qjq5dr0]

Governor Christie is just so awesome.

That was the best and most fair summary of this I have heard. Why didn't he run for president... :cry:

Because he would have lost. If may run next election.

I wouldn't mind the Republicans if they were like this.

You should do some research on Huntsman.

Thats why Christie is awesome. He's not your typical Republican.

Exactly what I thought. Stats class for the win, amirite?

It's like asking people if they are for a 'better America.'

It's pretty obvious what a more equal distribution means. A completely equal distribution would mean everyone has the same wealth. A completely unequal distribution would mean only one person has all the wealth. A more equal distribution of wealth means that wealth is more evenly distributed by taking from those who have the most and giving it to those who have the least.

And if you want the source, go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/two-thirds-americans-wealth-distribution_n_1032400.html

The US isn't as right-wing as people think. Its politicians are massively out of sync with public opinion.

Again, the poll likely has huge framing issues and, since it's a news poll (which are conducted over a period of days or even hours), a small sample size. From their own analysis on how they conducted the poll (conveniently hidden off the main article):

The poll isn't representative of jack-doodly doo. Most aren't, especially when given such vague and agreeable topics.

But honestly, who wouldn't support 'a more equal distribution of wealth?'

The poll was probably something stupid like, "do you think everybody should have a lot of money?". Okay, maybe not that simple, but it was probably worded carefully in order to get certain results.