Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by kidkboom

These liberals don't want "your" money. They want to rip up the pavement of the fast-track your whole party has paved right around the difficulties, often insurmountable, the rest of us encounter when we try to "get there" like the repubs did - "all on their own elbow grease" and all that nonsense. And that's gotta be heartbreaking to people who only made it because they were offered that inside track from the repub party.

For some reason, this reminds me of:

"У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно"

Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

For some reason, this reminds me of:

"У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно"

Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

Hmm.. Well, I like the quote, at least!

You've misread me if you think I hold any envy for these folks and what they've hoarded through these tactics. I have no envy - I do have a disdain for unfair play. The term "repubs" I shouldn't use: it's not really accurate to my intended reference .. some of these folks are on either side of the party lines, but unfair play IS unfair play. Soon as I find a better handle for this entity, I'll use that one instead.

I don't expect anything I say here to solve problems - "my" problems, or anyone's.. Discourse and solution are as different from each other as is Congress from a State Penitentiary. My intent was the former. In fact, the focus on the concept of "offering a solution" was applied by those who are arguing against the movement, not myself who would argue FOR it. I believe the argument was (no copyright violation intended as I know this is a tried-and-true debater's riposte) : "Sure, the Occupy guys can talk all day about the problem, but they don't offer any kind of a SOLUTION." .. A solution would be great, but I for one would not recommend that either side of this argument grab at straws to be ready with a solution, before discourse has voiced both sides and we've all looked for grounds on which to compromise.

For another thing - I didn't develop suspicion autonomously. I developed it through observation. Whosoever is qualified to term one man's observation as accurate and another's as overly suspicious - let him be licensed to make psychiatric evaluations, or else gifted with some altogether higher authority, such that can guarantee that this judgment is accurate and not merely a retaliatory strike in a rain of discussionary blows. Suffice it to say that until such time that such a declaration has been made, my observations, be they envious or suspicious through the eyes of another, are still my own and rendered valid by this distinction alone.

Now, here we breach the real question... How can one discuss the intent of a group that protests, without leaving the identity of the protesting group vulnerable to others' interpretations of their motives? I mean, almost ANY movement, you can say, "the challenger is ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS.. the incumbent is GREEDY and STUBBORN(can be subbed for CORRUPT on a case-by-case)." "The English Crown was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and the American revolutionaries were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. The white plantation owners were GREEDY and STUBBORN, and the black slaves were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. George W.'s regime was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and Obama's regime was ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS." ...Given no other information but that one group is in a position, and the other group seeks to uproot them... what I'm really stating is my own glass-empty/full view of life, isn't it? If I tend towards reactionism, I might interpret that, in the absence of other info, the force in power is correct. Or if I tend towards radicalism, I might interpret that the force that's oppressed by the power is correct. But - in the absence of actual criteria, it's all moot, isn't it? Beyond a Rorschach I mean?

As for the point I was originally making.. I was trying, and I'm starting to wish I wasn't the only one around here who was, to give a rough summary of the intent of the Occupy movement. I wasn't trying to bash Republicans and I wasn't trying to be Bolshevik 2.0.