"Occupy" Superthread

Combined, yes. However let's use an analogy with simple numbers, for my own ease.
Let's say there are 100 people in America, and there is a total of 100 dollars in wealth in America. This means that one person has 43 dollars to himself, while everyone else has to share 57 dollars. Assuming that 57 dollars is equally distributed (which its not, in actuality) that is roughly 57 cents each for 99 people, while one person has 43 dollars, a rather large divide.

I still think the silliest thing about all this is that they think the companies and corporations will bend to their will. If they were less concerned with all "fighting of the power" and "fuck the corporate system" they would be protesting in Washington, which is the only one who can reign anyone in. My advice? They need to get some economists who don't get a hard on when Marx is mentioned, and can teach them how they can bring about real change. For now, being angry isn't going to accomplish anything, and it speaks volumes about the whole OWS movement. Sure, they can protest for their pipe dreams, but if they really wanted to help people, they would have a set doctrine, be in Washington, and stop treating the upper class like villains, when they are hardly the problem.

The point still stands Tito. They are asking for mroe jobs and more jobs and when the philadelphia government does what they want and tries to employ 800 construction workers for a project that is going to take 2 years and be more environmental friendly, they refuse to let them. That really sounds like they have the people's best interests in their mind.

I was talking to someone in my English class who supports the movement today about it. Her response was that they should do more to fix roads.

The ruling class kinda controls the economy so.... They kinda are the main issue.

Care to answer why Occupy Philly protesters will refuse to move out of the area for a construction project THAT WILL EMPLOY 800 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.

The protests arent just about lowering unemployment its about the general inequality in power and wealth.

But that is part of their whole idea. The point still stands that they have no reason not to move from that location for a project that is supporting one of their demands.

We have not formulated any demands.

And that is why the "Occupy" movement will never achieve anything.

Kinda screwed yourself there buddy.

Instead of focusing on ONE protest in Philadelphia you should look at the general picture of the movement.
Problems:
1. There is a huge inequality in the US.
2. The two-party system doesn't work, and many people doesn't feel like they are represented properly.
3. Corporations have a huge influence on the decisions being made by the government etc.
4. The large deficit...
Solutionsor part of)
1. Improving the health-care in the US and raising taxes on the rich and corporations would improve the life of the average American.
2. Use proportional representation. That would allow small parties to have a chance.
3. See 1 and try to limit monetary "gifts" from corporations to election campaigns etc. through legislation.
4. Cut military spending.(Establish commitees etc.)

The problem with the protest, is that they have never made clear demands and they have no central leadership to talk to(which is essential for a group this diverse), they just make vague complaints about how the rich are destroying america and how evil wallstreet is. I agree with some of your points, like restrictions on corporate lobbying and limiting "Campaign Donations", but as the movement is right now, they will never achieve anything.

Well of course I will focus on each individual protest. If Occupy Philly refuses to move (and yes I know what happened last night) then that leaves a bad name for the other protesters. Like Lenin Cat said, the Occupy movement has not formulated any demands. They do not even have a leader which as much as LeninCat wants to rant about how if you have a leader then the whole movement is destroyed and blah blah blah, you kinda need a leader or leaders.

I agree, or at least the process will be slow(like months slow)

So if the policeforce use violence at one of the protests they automatically use it everywhere? Mabye I just don't get your logic or missed something...
A leader isn't needed if you can use direct democracy. It may be slower, but everyone can have a say.
At the various protests they are pushing the limit to where you can apply direct democracy.(the number of people)
That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea. A leader/leaders will always be the best way to get things done and make quick and effective decisions.

Alright guys I am going to go all out on this one. I was reading my local "Our Town" and read the cover story. I think it sums up Coex's, mine, and everybody else who's against OWS. Here it is:

Hopefully everybody will read this whole thing, because it basically explains everything perfectly.

Against OWS? My good sir, I am critical of the movement, just as the likes of Coex and Kali are critical of the movement; but I can assure you no one with at least a single functioning brain cell is flat out against OWS. For the simple reason that none of us are FOR ridiculously massive income inequality.

occupy is a joke they need a leader! there cannot be a group of people who just aimlessly do what they please it just does
not work. Someone or some people must be able to have loyal protestors and a plan to achieve their demands and
bring peace back. Lenin cat unless you want to see this precious movement broken i suggest you urge your "comrade's"
to find leadership {seriously good}. I say that since you say your with the movement and since you have
achieved NOTHING!

I'm exasperated with the movement, I want it to be a force for a new liberal America. The second version of president Johnson's new Great Society. But in the foreseeable future I can not see anything major coming from the movement.

Most of them propably don't have a job. The unemployment rate of the US is 9.2%