avenger
Well-Known Member
About time people stood up for themselves. Maybe they don't know every detail of what's wrong with the system but they know something is horrible wrong and they are standing up saying enough is enough.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I'd rather see them actually read up about what they're protesting for before they run to the streets just to act rebellious. I'm not up to date on this at all so can't provide an opinion on the situation, but protesting against the banks "just because... Ehmmm, I think they did something evil!" is nonsensical.Maybe they don't know every detail of what's wrong with the system but they know something is horrible wrong and they are standing up saying enough is enough.
No major broadcasting station has done a single report on it.
I find it interesting, but the thing that escapes me is what any of these protesters actually expect accomplish. Do they somehow expect to uncover corruption simply by standing around and waving signs? Something tells me that, if Wall Steet IS guilty of the... vagaries that they're being accused of, they'll probably be able to hold out longer than the protesters. Not to mention, these things traditionally don't stay static. It'll either erupt into violence and people will only remember it for its negative connotations, or it will simply peter out and people won't remember it at all.
The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.
I think the thought process is mostly to get the attention of as many as people as possible, and to get the common man to stop and ask, "What inherent ability do these people possess that I don't?"
That could very well be, but if that's the case, isn't "life's not fair" simply the most viable argument? It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that two equally qualified people have ended up in entirely different living situations.![]()
This is no different from any other kind of protest then. We usually don't hear these kinds of criticisms about them.I find it interesting, but the thing that escapes me is what any of these protesters actually expect accomplish. Do they somehow expect to uncover corruption simply by standing around and waving signs?
If by "vagueries" you mean "destroying and stealing billions of dollars in wealth" and "insider trading and bribing law enforcement officials," then maybe you're right. So what?Something tells me that, if Wall Steet IS guilty of the... vagaries that they're being accused of, they'll probably be able to hold out longer than the protesters.
Oh, so they're just supposed to keep their heads down and not respond to having their lifestyles destroyed by the wealthiest people in history?Not to mention, these things traditionally don't stay static. It'll either erupt into violence and people will only remember it for its negative connotations, or it will simply peter out and people won't remember it at all.
Yes, I guess they are. Way to go, ignoring the biggest thieves in world history and blaming their victims for having the nerve to be upset about them. How pathetic they are for having the nerve to spend any of their valuable job-searching time after 3 years trying to actually address the cause of their own unemployment.The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.
Well the question serves as a perspective checker. You see that they generally aren't doing anything you're not capable of doing, and you wonder how they got to that position of power and wealth.
This is no different from any other kind of protest then. We usually don't hear these kinds of criticisms about them.
If by "vagueries" you mean "destroying and stealing billions of dollars in wealth" and "insider trading and bribing law enforcement officials," then maybe you're right. So what?
Oh, so they're just supposed to keep their heads down and not respond to having their lifestyles destroyed by the wealthiest people in history?
Yes, I guess they are. Way to go, ignoring the biggest thieves in world history and blaming their victims for having the nerve to be upset about them. How pathetic they are for having the nerve to spend any of their valuable job-searching time after 3 years trying to actually address the cause of their own unemployment.
The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.