vruz says: I’m honestly not sure, but I think that you may be missing the point a bit. the point is probably not to disrupt the US economy (that’s what the Tea Party caucus does) but to make a symbolic stand and be heard by those in positions of power who can take decisions when they feel the heat (not the bank clerks). I don’t think anyone at this point is thinking of causing shock, but making peaceful protest. It will depend on the clarity of message they deliver whether it scales up or not, not on the decibels of some Tea Party-like angry shouting, and most certainly not their guns.
» SFB says: Honestly, we’re not thinking of it from a disrupt-the-economy aspect at all, but more a public relations, push-the-message-forward one. It’s sort of like, yes, you have to start somewhere, but if you’re going to make your voice heard, timing is your best friend. A Saturday start for a protest of something that’s best-known as a weekday endeavor, it feels ill-timed to us. The impact gets lost. Tea Partiers have scale and organization to push their momentum … those protesting Wall Street don’t have the same level of scale, but good timing goes a long way to make up for that. That’s why we pulled out the example of “Sleep Now in the Fire” — that wasn’t a massive protest, but it was well-timed and as a result, it helped push the message (which was similar to this one) further. — Ernie @ SFB
» Why did that happen? Simply put, the stock market liked the fact that Mubarak said he was giving up much of his authority in Egypt to Omar Suleiman – not enough for protesters, but apparently enough for money managers. ”The moment Mubarak said he would be giving up duties to his vice president, the market said it was a good thing and rose,” said Michael Holland, whose company manages billions in funds on the market.
Don’t screw this up Yahoo.
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...