You're saying "deluded fools," he says "quixotically condemning the system," implying he thinks it's pointless to protest, or at least useless to.


Is it that you don't think there is anything to protest (that is, that the various banks/firms/anything else that falls under "Wall Street" have done nothing worth protesting), or that you don't think the protest will accomplish anything?

If it's the first, well, I won't get into that. If it's the second, I feel like you don't quite understand the purpose of a protest. It's not a legislative body- one protest is not going to get a law passed.

What a protest is supposed to accomplish is to register your discontent, in a way that is hard to ignore. Not that most news outlets haven't been trying- I've seen very little coverage- but it's supposed to make people go, "Hm, if this horde of people is so angry about something that they're willing to scream about it in the streets, maybe there's something there."

Tom, you saying they should come up with "constructive and realistic proposals for change" instead of protesting is a bit...well, silly isn't the right word, but it's close. I thought you said they should be spending their time getting jobs? Plus, for the most part, these people are not legislators, television personalities, or the like. Even if they did have some proposals (and I'm sure some do, though I'm sure plenty just wanted to broadcast their general outrage), there's little chance of them running for office and implementing them. I suppose they could write letters to representatives and newspapers... and some of them do. None of that precludes protesting.



Oh, and Tom and random? you both look like idiots when you make comments about bums, hippies, and "macing them all." Makes you sound like Eric Cartman.