Talk:Occupy Wall Street

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This section is absurd. Ynet is not a trustworthy source and describing a movement from just a few individuals is exactly what the Occupy is about. The anti-Israel stance is standard of far left groups and is not antisemitic, but instead against colonialism. --Jukebox

That list of demands does not appear to be an official list :


I added the category for Anarchism but wondering if others feel the definition of anarchism on Conservapedia matches the demonstrations seen with OWS? These protests are anti-capitalist and anti-American, but are they currently seen as anarchists too? DerekE 12:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

You are correct. It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits. They earned the anarchism category. --Jpatt 13:21, 12 October 2011 (EDT)


The very few "demands" that might resemble legitimate questions are discredited by skeptical accusations, or they are backed by some very extremist anti-American philosophies. Let's take a look at some of the ridiculous pro communist, anti-American demands made by socialists, anarchists and other extremist liberals who hate capitalism, are jealous of the Tea Party Movement, and/or getting paid to act as Wall Street protesters.

On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

Beginning a protest "demand" list with an argument stating a convicted guilty person is "an innocent man" makes this occupation less credible. Capital punishment exists to deter the crimes that result in its use. Ending capital punishment, while seemingly good in its intention, would have negative consequences. For instance, ending capital punishment might result in more crime - criminal acts that might otherwise be deterred if Capital punishment was a considered form of justice.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

I highly doubt the charges were "baseless." I don't know anyone who has been arrested for doing, very literally, nothing.

I do. :) Cmurphynz 10:04, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

This is silly. Using the word "owned" suggests "half of the country's population" is literally enslaved without choice, and that someone who made something out of nothing but gained a lot of wealth in the process is evil. Demands like this suggest extreme positions are pushing this political spectacle in the form of a protest against Wall Street.

We can add Ending poverty is our one demand to the above, because it's redundant.

How do you go about ending "wealth inequality" or "poverty" anyway? Socialism? That's not gonna work; history has proven this. It won't happen.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

I guarantee with 100% confidence that Yahoo board members didn't act in some conspiracy to block mass emails getting sent from servers. For those who have ever worked in support for Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., you would know that there is a process which low tier support teams follow to determine what server are sending Spam and then block those IP addresses from doing so. These processes to block Spammers include the number of email users reporting email from spammers. If enough Spam is reported from an IP address, and it has been determined that a crap ton of email is being send from a particular server, some tier 3 Yahoo! support dude sitting in a chair at his desk probably just clicked a button to block the site after all the flags indicated him to do so, per a standard support model process.

That being said, ending corporate censorship would be interesting, which would include Google - a search engine that has been known to censor conservative websites. Perhaps the liberal, anti-American protestors might want to rethink this one.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

This is straight up anti-American ranting, and spreading disinformation. But it is in-line with the liberal false redefinition of the United States, so I'm not surprised liberals added it to their list of "demands." Imperialist nations would not invade a country to topple a bad regime, rebuild the country into a more free democracy, and then hand back all government and military control to the people of that country. Running with an argument to end something that does not exist discredits this political campaign to 'occupy wall street'.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

America is not at war with the world. It a small group of Leftist extremists who have, in their idealist views, quote "declared war" on America.

The only thing I think of when this political campaign mentions "99%" is that this must be the percentage of people the protesters are shouting at.

God bless the United States of America. DerekE 18:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

These Marxists are trying to bring America to the edge. Down here in Florida us tea party patriots held a counter-rally to these communist protests. I think this is a well written article on how desperate the leftists are getting. Barry will NOT have a second term. User:Teapartyman

Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!!

That wasn't Bill Ayers according to the link cited. The article is about ayers but has that comment thrown in "Those are the feelings of the far left who started to disrupt Wall Street on Saturday, September 17." The article makes no claims that that was said by Bill Ayers. Nor does that quote appear on his blog or anywhere(by him) as far as I can tell. Everything just seems to link back to the same story though most make no mention of Ayers at all. Ayzmo 16:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

I deleted the quote since it violates the first Conservapedia commandment and it was added back. Ayzmo 01:31, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Ayers quote

Jpatt, I don't think anyone here would defend Bill Ayers, but you are attributing a quote to him that is not supported by the citation, unless I am misreading the citation. It may be that he thinks that (in fact, I'm pretty sure he does), but you're saying that he wrote that. And he simply did not. Why do you keep putting that back? EricAlstrom 15:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Honestly, I don't think he cares. It is very easy to prove that he didn't say it with a Google search. Despite one of the protests against Wiki it seems that libelous statements are just as difficult to get rid of here. Ayzmo :) 16:27, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Why do you think it is a "libelous" statement? You do know Bill Ayers is a terrorist, right? Are saying this in defense of Bill Ayers, suggesting the quote may somehow damage his reputation? Or are you simply pointing out that the content might no longer exists on the Internet?
As you can see, someone added the citation needed template, which should have resolved this dispute for you. When I do a search for the quote, there are several sources with video references -- but unfortunately liberal Google owns YouTube and is very good about removing videos with content that may reveal the liberal agenda for what it really is. Likewise, if the quote was taken directly from Bill Ayers website, Bill the terrorist could have just as easily removed the content from his blog after realizing he revealed too much about his agenda. Everything Bill Ayers stands for is exactly as his quote reads.
That being said, if it is not a verbatim quote from Bill Ayers, then I do understand you concern - just not your approach pointing it out. Jpatt is one of the most honest, credible editors on Conservapedia; it's disrespectful and incorrect to assume he would edit out of malice or libelous intent. Perhaps you could help find appropriate content to replace it with rather than simply delete a quote that is very likely to have been said by Bill the terrorist. DerekE 16:54, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Mainly I said it because I figured it would get a reaction when nothing else seems to. I posted a question about it here and and on the pages of two people who added the quote back. No response was given to any despite what I would consider more than enough time(especially on a weekend). Whether it hurts Ayers' reputation is besides the point and I doubt he would actually care. He's pretty open about what he stands for and has no qualms about expressing it. But from everything I can find he did NOT say that. I spent a while searching yesterday. You can search as much as you want but there is no evidence to suggest he said that other than this page. The article that had been cited makes it pretty obvious that the quote was not his. It is pretty obvious to me that it is not his words. If nothing else I'm sure FOX would have made a news story about it. The fact is that we're supporting a lie here. I don't see how anyone could debate that. You can blame Google for removing things but that's an entirely different problem as far as I can see. Ayzmo :) 17:10, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Point taken, but I don't think we're supporting a lie. Like most ongoing events with continuously updated content and sources, further edits and updates to this article will continue to occur. Instead of removing important content, try re-wording it or rephrasing it without taking away from the factual intent. Add some value to the article instead of removing valuable points and citations. The fact is Bill Ayers has worked almost his entire life to bring down capitalism and overthrow the American way. He is a terrorist. DerekE 17:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. Ayzmo :) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. DerekE 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Ohhh...I see what the problem is here. It seems to me that, according to citation #10, Bill Ayers DID say that quote, but he did not say it in the context of the interview or in reference to Occupy Wall Street; he said it many years ago. So Bill Ayers DID say the quote, but he didn't say it in the context that the article seems to indicate. How about we reword the statement to make it very clear that Ayers did not say the quote recently or in regard to Occupy Wall Street, but at the same time clearly demonstrate Bill Ayers' ties to Occupy Wall Street and its similarities to Day of Rage? I think that would be a perfect compromise that would, most importantly, be truthful. I don't want Conservapedia to make up lies just because we think they point to the truth. That's just misguided. We should use the truth to demonstrate the truth, don't you agree? (Not trying to slander anyone's intentions here, mind you.) --StoryMaker 12:23, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Somethings to consider about the article

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement wants the government to take action concerning their demands. Obama has received a lot of money from banks and Wall Street plus stepped up the war in Afghanistan. Obama has re-hired the bankster Ben Bernanke plus hasn't fired Timothy Geitner. Yet, the OWS movement isn't really putting much direct pressure on Obama. I am guessing you don't see many anti-Obama signs at their protests and rallies. So how successful can this movement really be for the next 12 months?

Second, the world banksters want to feed off the public trough (bailouts, Federal Reserve, etc.) and the protesters want to feed off the public trough. To me at least, it largely seems to be a liberal vs. liberal struggle. The people of Iceland through a referendum told the banksters to get lost and they were not going to baii them out.[1] Over the short term, I am of the opinion that the banksters have a lot more sway with the Obama administration and with European Union commission officials than the protestors - especially since the OWS are not yet putting a lot of pressure directly on Obama. Plus, the European Union officials don't seem to be directly elected. See: Unelected Commission is the Government of Europe - Nigel Farage on Finnish TV. Conservative 06:02, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

The American Nazi party

Does anybody really think that they're "liberal?" Can you picture them voting for Obama, or supporting affirmative action? Actually, here in Arizona, the neo-nazis all vote for Republicans, and even try joining the Republican party. Let's put them apart.--CamilleT 16:02, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Well, they are siding with this liberal movement. Should we have two sections; one for liberals and one for extremists? --Jpatt 16:45, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Yes. It feels as though lumping the Nazis in with liberals in general is inaccurate and contentious. And yes, there have been neo-nazis at tea parties--CamilleT 17:37, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Are many of the protestors pro-evolution like Adolf Hitler? Do they want heavy state interference with private enterprises like Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party? (see: Nazism and socialism). Has Obama or Nancy Pelosi denounced the anti-semitism which is occuring at Occupy Wall Street yet? Conservative 16:52, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

OWS pretty pointless anyways. Obama and Washington is in the pocket of the banksters and the OWS people aren't about to put significant pressure on a liberal ally of crony capitalism like Obama. Conservative 17:21, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Official list of supporters?

Considering the source I think calling it the "official list of supporters" is a bit unrealistic. If it were announced in the same way as their official demands I'd give you that. Those are some supporters but there are surely others. Ayzmo :) 14:09, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

There are probably other supporters of Occupy Wall Street, but the official list of supporters is the best reference to an "official" list because it also cites about 3 to 5 other references for each supporter. In my opinion, it would be more unrealistic to add supporters to the list who are not necessarily referenced as supporting the leftist protests in various sources. It's more accurate this way with less speculation. DerekE 12:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Just a minor point about the list of supporters: can we please list them alphabetically by LAST name instead of FIRST name? Listing them by first name is just weird. --StoryMaker 12:06, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Proposal to remove the rapists and murderers playground line

This sounds like a liberal troll to me. While it may be true, the source doesn't mention it and it sounds like liberal satire aimed to make us appear alarmist. It should be removed but otherwise this is a good article.--Dylang 21:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Already removed. It was flat-out false anyways. Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 16:33, 18 December 2011 (EST)

The only thing flat-out false was saying there where no rapes (10) or murders at OWS.--Jpatt 17:02, 18 December 2011 (EST)
Exactly. I believe this is an example of liberals caught red-handed trying to censor conservatives. NickP 18:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
Yes, rapes have occurred, but they're not directly related to OWS or anything they're protesting for; merely a coincidence. I'm sure there've been rapes at Tea Party events and other conservative things. I'd also bet that the rapist didn't rape because they were conservative or at a conservative rally, either. However, to say that either are a murderer's/rapist's playground is a lie. Also, accusing liberals of censoring things when you're "re-translating" the Bible to remove "liberal bias" (i.e., censorship) is hypocritical. Please watch out for hypocrisy, on both sides (much as I do), in the future. Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 13:25, 19 December 2011 (EST)

more realistic article

I am not a fan of banksters who want bailouts and the Federal Reserve nor radical anachists/communists/progressives/liberals nor whiners with low skills who picked a bad college major and now have a lot of debt. With that being said, I know that some of the Occupy Wall Street people have been aggressive, but not all Occupy Wall Street protests have been filled with mayham. I think the article needs to have a broader description of the protests. I think the aggressiveness of the protests probably often reflects how aggressive the culture is in the area. For example, I would suspect the Canadian and some smaller city Midwest protests were less aggressive than some of the New York City/London/Pacific US ports protests.

For example, in one city that I am aware of the city/police have largely chosen to ignore the protestors because they don't want to give them any publicity or get the city involved in any legal disputes plus the city politicians don't want to lose any votes on the left. Also, the protestors aren't really causing many problems. In short, the city is taking a live and let live policy and the protestors aren't making pests of themselves. Conservative 09:06, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Would these sane rules also apply to fat atheists that do the nasty with goats, kill babies and Jews? --NatalyP 10:32, 31 December 2011 (EST)
One of the articles in question is already 20 pages long and CP does value conciseness so I regret to inform you that article will not see additional content for the foreseeable future. :) However, I did add some additional material to the atheism and obesity to reflect the heart attacks, etc. etc. of the atheists cited. Should I create a Famous obese atheists and heart attacks article? :) Conservative 14:51, 31 December 2011 (EST)


source please. If this is just a joke, then I am removing it again. Cmurphynz 00:28, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Thank you Dvergne. Cmurphynz 10:05, 22 October 2012 (EDT)