Actually, I just say good riddance to odious rubbish.
7 thoughts on “OWS”
Shucks! …and I was sooooo looking forward to a summer of fun leading up the Dem convention.
My take on OWS as well.
Yes, I suppose I can understand the intense outrage against OWS that has bounced around the echo chamber based on their Ayn Randian moocher/looter sense of social entitlement, daring to drawing moral equivalence to the Tea Party, and their all-around poor hygiene and general bad manners, not to mention a seeming tolerance of everything from sexual assualt to murder in their camps.
And bad choices in college majors. I don’t think any OWS protestor has come forward identifying themselves as unemployed and holding a degree in Electrical Engineering.
But.
To the extent that the OWS sites were Hoovervilles, Mr. Obama is the man who is Herbert Hoover stumbling through the deepening depression this time around. I am in agreement with Mpthompson in the sense that the Right Blogosphere reaction to OWS was entirely too earnest in taking the whole thing seriously, and we should have stepped back and maybe regarded OWS with a “Let the games begin!” attitude.
OWS hasn’t gone anywhere, they will be around more often as the election nears. They are planning riots in Chicago for the NATO summit. As Obama ramps up the class warfare against Romney, OWS will be emboldened.
I could care less what the OWS do or don’t do. Let them throw their hissy fits and tantrums. The more the public sees of them the more the public will reject them and the politicians who egg them on. If I thought OWS was actually capable of any organization I might think differently, but I haven’t seen any evidence they could organize their way out of a paper bag.
Like I said, you must be new around here. One must give them credence by taking them seriously. It is not enough to simply laugh at them.
I guess I am seconding your earlier remark that if OWS could stick around, it could be a definite liability to our Wall Street and Hollywood loving President. Apart from some tough talk, our President does a lot to keep in the good graces of the 1 Percent.
For example, one of the criticisms-from-the-Left is that Mr. Obama promised to close Camp X-ray. Since many of us on the Right have regarded Camp X-ray as a wartime necessity, perhaps it is snark to remark, “How has that closing down of the place worked out for you, Mr. President”, and maybe that would be wrong to criticize Mr. Obama on the one thing we agree with.
On the other hand, given the briefings Candidate Obama got from Mr. Bush, maybe Mr. Obama had no intention of closing down Camp X-ray, and maybe we should hassle him about it from the Right as it suggests that he isn’t being straight with people.
Take the killing of Mr. Bin Laden . . . please! On the Right, we should be thrilled that the President did what he had to do with respect to a wartime combatant against the U.S.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s snark that Bin Laden’s killing or capture was given low priority by the Bush people and that he, President Obama got the job done, maybe that should be a target of our criticism. The point of not targeting Mr. Bin Laden is that the Global War on Terror is a war not a criminal justice matter, and that there were many other war targets of higher priority from a war-fighting standpoint.
By making the “taking out” of Bin Laden a signature accomplishment of his presidency, Mr. Obama is taking trying to give credibility to terrorism as a criminal justice matter, where we had to use Navy SEALs as agents of justice for the victims of 9-11, rather than regarding Bin Laden as one of many leaders in an ongoing war against the U.S., and making a good war-fighting decision.
Maybe from a war-fighting standpoint it was better to leave Bin Laden neutralized in Pakistan and to spy on him to trace the network of generals waging war against us? This is not like the (internal) Hitler assasination where if Hitler was killed, the German Generals would sue for peace with the Western Powers so the Soviets wouldn’t take them over, and this would end the war. Bin Laden is gone, but the terror war continues.
Oh, they are well organized. There is an extensive back end to their movement. There is a network of leftest activists groups that funnel money, people, materials, and organizational support to the movement. Oh, and the politicians that use the tools of the state to support their pet militant protest wing.
They are also very structured protesters. The taunts they yell at cops and they way they use violence to generate a reaction from the cops is all highly orchestrated. There was an interesting video going around of one OWS protest where they formed a shield wall with shields made out of rubber garbage cans cut in half and advanced on the police.
Are they organized enough to do more than riot in the street? Perhaps, there have already been several Democrat incumbents that have been primaries in favor of more progressive OWS style politicians.
I certainly agree that the more people see of OWS the more they get turned off but it would be foolish to be dismissive of them. They have shown that they have no qualms about using violence and intimidation to achieve their goals and we should never turn my back on them.
Shucks! …and I was sooooo looking forward to a summer of fun leading up the Dem convention.
My take on OWS as well.
Yes, I suppose I can understand the intense outrage against OWS that has bounced around the echo chamber based on their Ayn Randian moocher/looter sense of social entitlement, daring to drawing moral equivalence to the Tea Party, and their all-around poor hygiene and general bad manners, not to mention a seeming tolerance of everything from sexual assualt to murder in their camps.
And bad choices in college majors. I don’t think any OWS protestor has come forward identifying themselves as unemployed and holding a degree in Electrical Engineering.
But.
To the extent that the OWS sites were Hoovervilles, Mr. Obama is the man who is Herbert Hoover stumbling through the deepening depression this time around. I am in agreement with Mpthompson in the sense that the Right Blogosphere reaction to OWS was entirely too earnest in taking the whole thing seriously, and we should have stepped back and maybe regarded OWS with a “Let the games begin!” attitude.
OWS hasn’t gone anywhere, they will be around more often as the election nears. They are planning riots in Chicago for the NATO summit. As Obama ramps up the class warfare against Romney, OWS will be emboldened.
I could care less what the OWS do or don’t do. Let them throw their hissy fits and tantrums. The more the public sees of them the more the public will reject them and the politicians who egg them on. If I thought OWS was actually capable of any organization I might think differently, but I haven’t seen any evidence they could organize their way out of a paper bag.
Like I said, you must be new around here. One must give them credence by taking them seriously. It is not enough to simply laugh at them.
I guess I am seconding your earlier remark that if OWS could stick around, it could be a definite liability to our Wall Street and Hollywood loving President. Apart from some tough talk, our President does a lot to keep in the good graces of the 1 Percent.
For example, one of the criticisms-from-the-Left is that Mr. Obama promised to close Camp X-ray. Since many of us on the Right have regarded Camp X-ray as a wartime necessity, perhaps it is snark to remark, “How has that closing down of the place worked out for you, Mr. President”, and maybe that would be wrong to criticize Mr. Obama on the one thing we agree with.
On the other hand, given the briefings Candidate Obama got from Mr. Bush, maybe Mr. Obama had no intention of closing down Camp X-ray, and maybe we should hassle him about it from the Right as it suggests that he isn’t being straight with people.
Take the killing of Mr. Bin Laden . . . please! On the Right, we should be thrilled that the President did what he had to do with respect to a wartime combatant against the U.S.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s snark that Bin Laden’s killing or capture was given low priority by the Bush people and that he, President Obama got the job done, maybe that should be a target of our criticism. The point of not targeting Mr. Bin Laden is that the Global War on Terror is a war not a criminal justice matter, and that there were many other war targets of higher priority from a war-fighting standpoint.
By making the “taking out” of Bin Laden a signature accomplishment of his presidency, Mr. Obama is taking trying to give credibility to terrorism as a criminal justice matter, where we had to use Navy SEALs as agents of justice for the victims of 9-11, rather than regarding Bin Laden as one of many leaders in an ongoing war against the U.S., and making a good war-fighting decision.
Maybe from a war-fighting standpoint it was better to leave Bin Laden neutralized in Pakistan and to spy on him to trace the network of generals waging war against us? This is not like the (internal) Hitler assasination where if Hitler was killed, the German Generals would sue for peace with the Western Powers so the Soviets wouldn’t take them over, and this would end the war. Bin Laden is gone, but the terror war continues.
Oh, they are well organized. There is an extensive back end to their movement. There is a network of leftest activists groups that funnel money, people, materials, and organizational support to the movement. Oh, and the politicians that use the tools of the state to support their pet militant protest wing.
They are also very structured protesters. The taunts they yell at cops and they way they use violence to generate a reaction from the cops is all highly orchestrated. There was an interesting video going around of one OWS protest where they formed a shield wall with shields made out of rubber garbage cans cut in half and advanced on the police.
Are they organized enough to do more than riot in the street? Perhaps, there have already been several Democrat incumbents that have been primaries in favor of more progressive OWS style politicians.
I certainly agree that the more people see of OWS the more they get turned off but it would be foolish to be dismissive of them. They have shown that they have no qualms about using violence and intimidation to achieve their goals and we should never turn my back on them.