Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) I've recently gone back to university, and after a 4th-year political science class i had last week I was talking to 2 guys in my class, neither knew each other, but both came to class with luggage and a tent, and told me that after class they were each heading downtown (I live in Ottawa) to join protesters in the Occupy movement at Confederation Park, a block from Parliament Hill. These guys were both full-time 4th-year political science students who had part-time jobs too, and said they go down to protest whenever they don't have classes/work and that they sleep at the protest site whenever they can. I really respected that. This changed my tune a bit on the protesters from the image portrayed in the media. These are intelligent, well-spoken, and obviously educated guys who obviously aren't just bums whining about being paid more for being lazy. Oh and they weren't hippies or weirdos either. One of them said the protesters are a mix of social democrats and anarchists. I suspect there are many other full-time students doing what these guys were doing, as well as people who work full-time in good jobs who are down there and sleep down there. It's likely mostly young people protesting because older folks who have family responsibilities are obviously less likely to do so, and yes unemployed people too are disproportionately represented in the protests because they have the most free time to give. I would bet there are many older, fully employed regular folks who support the protests but aren't represented well among the protesters because of time and family responsibilities. So let the media & people on here call this a "lazy bum" movement, but I think it has much wider support than it appears. Edited October 25, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Not all Occupy protesters are lazy unemployed bums Not all, but most. I'm not saying that if you're an occupy protester, you're a lazy unemployed bum. But chances are, if you're a lazy unemployed bum, you're probably an occupy protester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treehugger Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) If they aren't all lazy bums why aren't they at work or university or trade school?? They have been asked several times "what are protesting" and nobody knows. Edited October 25, 2011 by treehugger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Not all, but most. I'm not saying that if you're an occupy protester, you're a lazy unemployed bum. But chances are, if you're a lazy unemployed bum, you're probably an occupy protester. Oh I see how this is played. Not all muslism are terrorists, but all terrorists are probably muslim. Not to trot out the muslim line, but it's the same kind of thinking that tries to marginalize a group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 If they aren't all lazy bums why aren't they at work or university or trade school?? They have been asked several times "what are protesting" and nobody knows. They might start making some headway if that was the case. Blanket statements like 'capitalism is bad' does the movement no good at all. Blanket generic statements might work for the majority of idiots who really don't pay attention to things happening around them. But they don't work for anyone who has paid any attention to any of the crisis' we faced in the last few years. The message needs to be put in the right way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 There's an interesting OP in the Wall Street Journal by Douglas Schoen: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd Perhaps it's been posted in one of the other three threads about OWS - it's difficult to keep track, especially with so many posts being nothing but lengthy C&P's - but this thread seems an appropriate place to post it. ....the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people... The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda. The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%). What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas. Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%). This polling of the occupants supports the claim that university students, people with jobs, are part of the movement - that not all occupiers are "lazy unemployed bums," supporting the opening post. It also suggests that they are not representing the majority - the "99%" - and the willingness by not a small percentage to "support violence" to attain their goals is troubling, and most definitely does not speak for the "99%." Another thing I found interesting - basically half believe that the bank bailouts were necessary, which goes against what a lot of liberals on this board seem to believe. The "protectionist" aspect is also interesting - if the desire is to keep jobs here, seems to me they'd support "Buy American." I find this particularly interesting because the idea of OWS originally came from Adbusters out of Vancouver. With all the support OWS is getting outside of the U.S., I have to wonder if this is even known to 'the masses,' so to speak. As I said, I found the WSJ OP, the poll, interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 As I said, I found the WSJ OP, the poll, interesting. It would be even more interesting if the Wall Street Journal commissioned and published a poll that didn't just reinforce the message they wanted to convey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 It would be even more interesting if the Wall Street Journal commissioned and published a poll that didn't just reinforce the message they wanted to convey. The Wall Street Journal would have a vested interest in making sure that Wall Street is making themselves heard. In another word, propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 These guys were both full-time 4th-year political science students who had part-time jobs too, and said they go down to protest whenever they don't have classes/work and that they sleep at the protest site whenever they can. I really respected that. I'm sure they'll have lovely careers at Tim Horton's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 The Wall Street Journal would have a vested interest in making sure that Wall Street is making themselves heard. In another word, propaganda. So everything is propaganda then, since every source would have a vested interest in making sure that they are making themselves heard. For the life of me, I can't understand why the WSJ would be saying that the Democratic party shouldn't be supporting this protest too strongly. I fail to see how that would be a "vested interest" for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 There's an interesting OP in the Wall Street Journal by Douglas Schoen: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd Yes, that is very interesting....thanks for sharing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 If they aren't all lazy bums why aren't they at work or university or trade school?? They have been asked several times "what are protesting" and nobody knows. The propaganda machine would sure make you think that, wouldn't it? http://weknowmemes.com/2011/10/they-dont-really-seem-to-know-why-they-are-protesting/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 So everything is propaganda then, since every source would have a vested interest in making sure that they are making themselves heard. I didn't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 So everything is propaganda then, since every source would have a vested interest in making sure that they are making themselves heard. Well, in a way that is correct. For the life of me, I can't understand why the WSJ would be saying that the Democratic party shouldn't be supporting this protest too strongly. I fail to see how that would be a "vested interest" for them. Without Wall Street, there is no journal!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 So everything is propaganda No, just the sources he disagrees with. Sources that he cites are totally not propaganda, and you should fully embrace and believe them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Without Wall Street, there is no journal!! Wow, that's just brilliant. Dude, it's the freaking name of the paper. It covers global news, local news, sports, etc. I guess without New York, there'd be no New York Times then right? No Toronto, no Toronto Star. /facepalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not all, but most. I'm not saying that if you're an occupy protester, you're a lazy unemployed bum. But chances are, if you're a lazy unemployed bum, you're probably an occupy protester. "Lazy" unemployed "bums" don't care about protesting. They're busy with video games.Some may be unemployed, but the protesters are definitely not "lazy". And if they were bums they wouldn't have received over $400k in donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 ...And if they were bums they wouldn't have received over $400k in donations. Even as bums they are failures....$400K ??? Is that all so far? Real bums have taken in million$! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 So everything is propaganda then, since every source would have a vested interest in making sure that they are making themselves heard. Absolutely. It's your job to decipher the truth. The first thing to do is look at a WSJ poll about Occupation Wall Street with the same skepticism as you would for...oh, virtually everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 I'm sure they'll have lovely careers at Tim Horton's. Haha that is exactly what I thought when I read that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Absolutely. It's your job to decipher the truth. The first thing to do is look at a WSJ poll about Occupation Wall Street with the same skepticism as you would for...oh, virtually everything else. Wow. Thanks for the invaluable advice. Because of course I didn't already do that. Without Wall Street, there is no journal!! There would be a Journal, just with a different name. I don't connect the WSJ with promoting the cause of the Democratic Party, so I don't see this OP as particularly leaning towards anything other than what it is - an overview of the occupants based on interviews. I don't see why that's a view that the WSJ would feel a particular need to get out there. Edited October 26, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Wow. Thanks for the invaluable advice. Because of course I didn't already do that. And yet you asked the question. Am I missing something here? There would be a Journal, just with a different name. Indeed it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 And yet you asked the question. Am I missing something here? Yeah. You're missing the fact that I didn't ask a question. Indeed it would be. Okaaaaaay. So if it had a different name - ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yeah. You're missing the fact that I didn't ask a question. I guess you did not ask a question. But in a sense you made a statement that the WSJ is putting out propaganda. Unless that statement was to be a question. Which was a reply to my statement about them putting out propaganda. So if it had a different name - ?? If it had a different name it would not be The WSJ, it would be called something else. Natch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) I guess you did not ask a question. But in a sense you made a statement that the WSJ is putting out propaganda. Unless that statement was to be a question. Which was a reply to my statement about them putting out propaganda. No. My statement wasn't saying that the WSJ puts out propaganda. My comment was in response to your claim that it does. I was saying according to what you were saying, every source puts out propaganda, so the WSJ would be no different; no different from any media source. Certainly the occupiers themselves are putting out propaganda, right? Everything being Twittered, Face Booked, You Tubed - it's all propaganda. It's all the side of the story they want to get out. In other words, if that's your judgement regarding the WSJ, the same judgement has to apply to all. It's you who made the judgement, not me. So none of the sources/quotes/links that have posted here are to be believed by you - they are nothing but propaganda. If it had a different name it would not be The WSJ, it would be called something else. Natch. And Rose by any other name would still be a Rose. So your point was - pointless. Edited October 26, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.