3 ms·

>sparking the Wall Street protests ... which have been completely ineffective in getting anything done. You're thinking in Internet Time. In IRL Time, OWS has

>sparking the Wall Street protests ... which have been completely ineffective in getting anything done. You're thinking in Internet Time. In IRL Time, OWS has accomplished a great deal in terms of shifting the debate. No, the bankers haven't been sent to jail and students are still unemployed. Just yesterday, however, we had Newt Gingrich of all people saying that capitalism shouldn't benefit the few at the expense of the many, and that the reckless pursuit of profit at the expense of people is a perversion of capitalism. Were it not for OWS, we would never be hearing that (and certainly not from Newt). We technorati tend to be pretty self-effacing, which is usually a good thing. When we ignore our real successes, however, we sell ourselves short and discourage future attempts to change things. I agree, we're generally pretty bad at convincing people that we're right. We usually adopt the, "I know I'm right, who cares if this idiot agrees" attitude. That said, we've been very successful at empowering others to advance causes. We can acknowledge our failings without ignoring our successes.

daniel_solano 15y ago
Just yesterday, however, we had Newt Gingrich of all people saying that capitalism shouldn't benefit the few at the expense of the many, and that the reckless pursuit of profit at the expense of people is a perversion of capitalism. Were it not for OWS, we would never be hearing that (and certainly not from Newt). I disagree. I think it only has to do with Romney's status as the front-runner. Romney portrays himself as a businessman that knows how to create jobs. Newt is trying to paint Romney as an 80s-style corporate raider. I am fairly certain OWS has nothing to do with it. If Newt was the front-runner, he wouldn't be bringing it up.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Were it not for OWS, we would never be hearing that (and certainly not from Newt). Yes, Newt would certainly never advocate for statism over capitalism were it not for OWS. Not only that, but OWS also caused Newt to advocate in favor of Obama/Romneycare (the individual mandate in particular), lobby on behalf of Fannie Mae, and support redistribution of wealth from the young to the old. Oh, my mistake - Gingrich did all that other stuff years before OWS. Gingrich was never a capitalist. He's just a christian nationalist who wants a big government (albeit a big government organized slightly differently). His current position is unsurprising, particularly since it helps him score political points against Romney.

daniel_solano 15y ago

Just yesterday, however, we had Newt Gingrich of all people saying that capitalism shouldn't benefit the few at the expense of the many, and that the reckless pursuit of profit at the expense of people is a perversion of capitalism. Were it not for OWS, we would never be hearing that (and certainly not from Newt). I disagree. I think it only has to do with Romney's status as the front-runner. Romney portrays himself as a businessman that knows how to create jobs. Newt is trying to paint Romney as an 80s-style corporate raider. I am fairly certain OWS has nothing to do with it. If Newt was the front-runner, he wouldn't be bringing it up.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Were it not for OWS, we would never be hearing that (and certainly not from Newt). Yes, Newt would certainly never advocate for statism over capitalism were it not for OWS. Not only that, but OWS also caused Newt to advocate in favor of Obama/Romneycare (the individual mandate in particular), lobby on behalf of Fannie Mae, and support redistribution of wealth from the young to the old. Oh, my mistake - Gingrich did all that other stuff years before OWS. Gingrich was never a capitalist. He's just a christian nationalist who wants a big government (albeit a big government organized slightly differently). His current position is unsurprising, particularly since it helps him score political points against Romney.