Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think the Occupy movement has a point?
* * * * *
Yes, but I haven't quite figured it out yet!
FRANK SCISM
* * * * *
Their points are all summed up in the Liberty Square Blueprint. If you're a follower of Fox News I'm sure you've never heard of this document. Which is amazing, since Fox is so "fair and balanced."
KAM BENFIELD
* * * * *
All of them, including those in Winston-Salem, are chanting:
We're lazy!
You're not!
We demand what you got!
CLINT JOHNSON
* * * * *
Absolutely the Occupy movement has a point. The problem might be Washington, but Washington is being fed by Wall Street. Already Occupy Wall Street has changed the dialogue in this country, and it has done so in an amazingly nonviolent way. Every time the cops attack and brutalize peaceful demonstrators they destroy their own credibility and the credibility of their masters.
I am dumbfounded by how the Occupy movement has been able to remain, for the most part, so incredibly nonviolent. My hat's off to them; I would, absolutely, not be able to restrain myself to the abuses they have been subjected to. They are a model for the world. They have my support. The time for change has truly come.
RICH WOODWARD
* * * * *
Yes, I think Occupy Winston-Salem has a point. As a member, I love the opportunity to meet with people of different backgrounds and opinions, and to reach consensus on matters of public concern. Working together in nonviolence is the point.
Our purposes are positive, and I don't understand the comments made by those who accuse us of varying degrees of immoral, costly and criminal behaviors. We support those people who aren't getting a fair shake, who are struggling in our economy, and who don't have a powerful voice. And, here in Winston-Salem, we have done that every step of the way through legal channels. We have been trying nothing more than to make this city a better place to live.
Now that the Journal has used its "powerful voice" against us, I'm afraid we might not be able to do that.
DIANNE P. HOBBS
* * * * *
The Occupy movement has a very clear point: Government has been hijacked by money, and the desires of a very small percentage of people, rather than serving the common good.
ELISABETH M. MOTSINGER
* * * * *
We conservatives threw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting everything that is driving the Occupy movement. The dishonesty and greed of Wall Street executives, bankers, members of Congress and lobbyists that have destroyed people's life savings and put the entire global economy at risk is an issue both liberals and conservatives should embrace. So what if our tea party demonstrations were mocked by the mainstream media despite being orderly and safe while the Occupy movement has proved to be smelly and lawless? We are not alike, but it's a mistake by the political right to not recognize the common ground of both movements.
In a free republic like ours, laws alone will never control greed. Capitalism needs strong ethics to keep it in check, and the only ethics that will overcome the love of money are those derived from knowing and fearing God.
Most of our Founding Fathers assumed our citizens would be God-pleasers. Greed is flourishing because the God-fearing population is shrinking. We need to re-regulate Wall Street, replace career politicians and pray for a revival.
MIKE J. BARON
* * * * *
Yes, but some inquiry is needed. The Occupy movement's endorsers include: Communist Party USA, American Nazi Party, Socialist Party USA, Louis Farrakhan, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Khamenei and the government of North Korea. Why are groups and individuals who loathe both liberty and America endorsing the Occupy movement?
DEBORAH S. "DEB" PHILLIPS
* * * * *
Any fair observer sees that the Occupiers have a point: There is entrenched unfairness in American capitalism. Our financial, legal and social systems have been bent in favor of the very rich. The issue is, What kind of fruit will the Occupy movement bear? Its effect will depend more on practical politics than morality: Can it convert its energy into partisan political channels?
If the Occupiers can field candidates and get its believers to the polls, then they will really change things, as the tea party has demonstrated negatively.
HAYES McNEILL
* * * * *
Yes, the Occupy movement definitely has a point in this area. With Duke Energy asking for rate hikes — with Time Warner Cable increasing its rates — tuition increases — restaurant prices skyrocketing — CEO salaries and insurance premiums increasing — what do you think? Where are we going?
The average American citizen sees no future since his wages have become stagnant (no increase), housing market prices are plummeting, there's the loss of jobs, foreclosures, etc. It is depressing. Now is the time not just to occupy, but to take action in a peaceful way.
J.B. EDWARDS
* * * * *
The Occupy movement not only has a point, but it makes a simple but profound point: The rich 1 percent become richer, the 99 percent laboring poor, poorer. The Occupy movement shifts the national dialogue and focus from deficit, public spending and big government to widening and growing income disparity and economic injustice.
Over the last three decades, the rich have seen their incomes increased by 275 percent, whereas the lower-class income 19 percent and the middle-class income 40 percent.
The rich not only rake in the dough but also grab the power. The 2010 midterm elections were bought by big corporations and big donors. (It is reported that in North Carolina, the wealthy businessman Art Pope almost single-handedly put all the tea party-leaning Republican candidates in the state House.)
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin rightly observed in 2009, "[Banks] frankly own the place (the Senate)." The corporation-sponsored ALEC flooded the GOP-dominated statehouses with its model bills. People's interests are completely ignored. By all measures, the nation has been turned into a plutocracy. Democracy is a sham.
BOON T. LEE
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think the Occupy movement has a point?
Yes, but I haven't quite figured it out yet!
FRANK SCISM
Their points are all summed up in the Liberty Square Blueprint. If you're a follower of Fox News I'm sure you've never heard of this document. Which is amazing, since Fox is so "fair and balanced."
KAM BENFIELD
All of them, including those in Winston-Salem, are chanting:
We're lazy!
You're not!
We demand what you got!
CLINT JOHNSON
Absolutely the Occupy movement has a point. The problem might be Washington, but Washington is being fed by Wall Street. Already Occupy Wall Street has changed the dialogue in this country, and it has done so in an amazingly nonviolent way. Every time the cops attack and brutalize peaceful demonstrators they destroy their own credibility and the credibility of their masters.
I am dumbfounded by how the Occupy movement has been able to remain, for the most part, so incredibly nonviolent. My hat's off to them; I would, absolutely, not be able to restrain myself to the abuses they have been subjected to. They are a model for the world. They have my support. The time for change has truly come.
RICH WOODWARD
Yes, I think Occupy Winston-Salem has a point. As a member, I love the opportunity to meet with people of different backgrounds and opinions, and to reach consensus on matters of public concern. Working together in nonviolence is the point.
Our purposes are positive, and I don't understand the comments made by those who accuse us of varying degrees of immoral, costly and criminal behaviors. We support those people who aren't getting a fair shake, who are struggling in our economy, and who don't have a powerful voice. And, here in Winston-Salem, we have done that every step of the way through legal channels. We have been trying nothing more than to make this city a better place to live.
Now that the Journal has used its "powerful voice" against us, I'm afraid we might not be able to do that.
DIANNE P. HOBBS
The Occupy movement has a very clear point: Government has been hijacked by money, and the desires of a very small percentage of people, rather than serving the common good.
ELISABETH M. MOTSINGER
We conservatives threw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting everything that is driving the Occupy movement. The dishonesty and greed of Wall Street executives, bankers, members of Congress and lobbyists that have destroyed people's life savings and put the entire global economy at risk is an issue both liberals and conservatives should embrace. So what if our tea party demonstrations were mocked by the mainstream media despite being orderly and safe while the Occupy movement has proved to be smelly and lawless? We are not alike, but it's a mistake by the political right to not recognize the common ground of both movements.
In a free republic like ours, laws alone will never control greed. Capitalism needs strong ethics to keep it in check, and the only ethics that will overcome the love of money are those derived from knowing and fearing God.
Most of our Founding Fathers assumed our citizens would be God-pleasers. Greed is flourishing because the God-fearing population is shrinking. We need to re-regulate Wall Street, replace career politicians and pray for a revival.
MIKE J. BARON
Yes, but some inquiry is needed. The Occupy movement's endorsers include: Communist Party USA, American Nazi Party, Socialist Party USA, Louis Farrakhan, Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Khamenei and the government of North Korea. Why are groups and individuals who loathe both liberty and America endorsing the Occupy movement?
DEBORAH S. "DEB" PHILLIPS
Any fair observer sees that the Occupiers have a point: There is entrenched unfairness in American capitalism. Our financial, legal and social systems have been bent in favor of the very rich. The issue is, What kind of fruit will the Occupy movement bear? Its effect will depend more on practical politics than morality: Can it convert its energy into partisan political channels?
If the Occupiers can field candidates and get its believers to the polls, then they will really change things, as the tea party has demonstrated negatively.
HAYES McNEILL
Yes, the Occupy movement definitely has a point in this area. With Duke Energy asking for rate hikes — with Time Warner Cable increasing its rates — tuition increases — restaurant prices skyrocketing — CEO salaries and insurance premiums increasing — what do you think? Where are we going?
The average American citizen sees no future since his wages have become stagnant (no increase), housing market prices are plummeting, there's the loss of jobs, foreclosures, etc. It is depressing. Now is the time not just to occupy, but to take action in a peaceful way.
J.B. EDWARDS
The Occupy movement not only has a point, but it makes a simple but profound point: The rich 1 percent become richer, the 99 percent laboring poor, poorer. The Occupy movement shifts the national dialogue and focus from deficit, public spending and big government to widening and growing income disparity and economic injustice.
Over the last three decades, the rich have seen their incomes increased by 275 percent, whereas the lower-class income 19 percent and the middle-class income 40 percent.
The rich not only rake in the dough but also grab the power. The 2010 midterm elections were bought by big corporations and big donors. (It is reported that in North Carolina, the wealthy businessman Art Pope almost single-handedly put all the tea party-leaning Republican candidates in the state House.)
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin rightly observed in 2009, "[Banks] frankly own the place (the Senate)." The corporation-sponsored ALEC flooded the GOP-dominated statehouses with its model bills. People's interests are completely ignored. By all measures, the nation has been turned into a plutocracy. Democracy is a sham.
BOON T. LEE
Deb, one does not get to pick and choose one's endorsers, besides 100% of all US Citizens have a right to voice their opinions and most people, despite "party" affiliation, can recognize injustice and inequality when they see it. Stop demonizing people, especially ones you've never met. Such binary thinking
ReplyDeleteMike J Baron:? Most of our Founding Fathers assumed our citizens would be God-pleasers.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the founders were not all fathers. Calling them "Founding Fathers" is just a relic of a patriarchal system where He and His is always capitlized, honor they father and all. Well, honor thy father, when he deserves it. Second, figuring out what they intended is still not settled, much less their assumptions. hmm, I wonder if the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was a God-pleaser?
I do however agree with a lot of what you say:
ReplyDelete" dishonesty and greed of Wall Street executives, bankers, members of Congress and lobbyists that have destroyed people's life savings and put the entire global economy at risk is an issue both liberals and conservatives should embrace." check
"it's a mistake by the political right to not recognize the common ground of both movements." check both should recognize the common ground.
"Capitalism needs strong ethics to keep it in check" check.
What I don't agree with is absolutism: "the only ethics that will overcome ....."
Happy Thanksgiving to all
ReplyDeleteIf you travel, travel safe
If you have a big meal, I hope you can eat 'til you touch the table.
And many Happy returns, WW.
ReplyDelete