Indeed. It's impossible to win when you don't have a clear goal. All of the political leaders could say to OWS right now "ok, you win, we'll do what you want" and nothing would happen because they haven't defined anything specific they want, other than to complain.

I don't so much see conservatives or any other group as being against OWS, more people asking "what the hell are you talking about?" Of the various answers different protestors give, some might make sense and many answers are just not well thought out at all. For example, one popular Occupy web site demands that the First Amendment not apply to speech that makes a political point, that people shouldn't have the right to support causes they believe in. That's just silly. Speech with a political point is the main thing the first amendment is supposed to protect.

For these demands, it's not that people are anti-OWS, they're just anti-dumb.

hmm.. so you're "patient" and anyone that disagrees with you is "impatient"?

You're oversimplifying, the really impatient ones give themselves away.

Exactly. :thumbsup

Your word, not mine.

:2 cents:

Got bad news for you... if you're message isn't getting across clearly, people don't understand exactly what it is, don't understand exactly why they are doing what they are doing and don't understand exactly what is expected to happen... and you're going to blame the audience as a result, then the message AND the messengers have failed.
:2 cents:

Since youre obviously in the know and have a reputation for being proven right, would you mind giving us a timeline for this oh patient one?

I just want to be able to give you the credit you'll be due when it happens. Of course if doesn't happen, I might mock you. I promise just a little though.

The real question :

Will NATO protect the rebels from the Regime ?

Scares? Why? Do you know how many well armed militias are in that area?

Must be great to be uniformed and blissfully content in you ignorance.

50 ignorant gun worshipping religious racist freaks

..you should know .... :1orglaugh

But it's not the bankers. It's police officers. Who make about $50k a year. You know, the 99%.

Love this

I'm thinking that some of these "occupy" tent cities are probably starting to evolve into bureaucracies themselves. And the protestors are too busy tending to their own little "community" needs (kitchen workers, security force, etc) to actually "protest" much anymore.

I'm even of the opinion...that IF the govt. were to tell them "Yes, we agree with everything you say"...that they still wouldn't leave. Why would I leave a situation where I was "important" to go back to my normal life?

I bet they are going to stay there come hell or high water and tend to their "community" until something bad happens (police move in or national guard)

OWS does have a message now of what they want.

That is a impossibility since what is protested against is the merger between banks and government. In order to agree with the protestors the government, the privatly owned Federal reserve and the banks should all retire at the same time.

Now we know none of these people will leave without a massive personal bailout.

Let me see if I understood the message. The first four minutes were anti-business, then a minute of Fox News contributor Judge Napolitano, then a few seconds of Ron Paul. So they hate business and love Napolitano and Paul? The question was "what do they want?" I'm left guessing that they want to destroy business, elect Ron Paul, and watch Judge Napolitano on Fox News?

OWS reminds me in many ways of the early Tea Party. The early Tea Party would have someone say something rational about taxes and tax reform only to be followed up by someone dressed like a southern civil war soldier who wanted to lynch Obama. They eventually refined their message, got rid of many of the crazies and focused on getting local officials elected to congress. Now, obviously, they did a lot of this because the republican party stepped in and took over aspects of the movement, bu they will were able to refine and articulate their ideals.

OWS will have a guy talk intelligently about how the supreme court made a terrible mistake by ruling that corporations are people and therefore have first amendment rights and can spend as much money as they want on campaigns. They make a strong poing and it is one shared by many. Then the next guy talks about destroying all banks.

No one said anything about "soundbites" except you.

Having a simple, clear, concise and well stated objective is a pretty obvious requirement when you're fighting for something and expect support in doing so. That objective determines strategy and tactics and defines the finish line, not to mention helps everyone understand what it is that everyone is trying to achieve.

Its pretty clear when people have to continually ask "what do these guys want" that their message, if you can call it that is an epic failure. Combine that with imagery of Oakland riots and similar disturbances associated with "protesters" and you just can't win over the public on any real scale and they will more support the police stepping in and crushing them than they will supporting their ill defined cause.

This is no different than WTO protesters. They have tons of valid points about fair trade, developing countries, how those countries are treated and so on... but it is never well communicated, there is never a clear message or clear objective in the protests and any good that could have came out of it gets overtaken by a bunch of idiot kids throwing rocks through store windows leading to inevitable clashes with authorities.


:2 cents:

Whatever ... maybe they will come up with a 5 word slogan ...