Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A real debate about the course of the movement

Posted 3 years ago on Sept. 28, 2011, 1:04 p.m. EST by npowell85 (249) from Montana City, Mt
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who was it that laid out the path for the movement, and what was the rational? If the group is leaderless, how did you land on these decisions?

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150409084095833

your in the streets to avoid the work, and now, everyone wants to know. Wheres the work?

[-] 1 points by bankrupt2def (4) 3 years ago

"Commercial Fairplay" is what its called, preventing licentious (dissoluted), uncontrolled money spending established by the int. soccer association. Could be a "how to do" handbook for banks, insurances, service provider and other money addicted institutions. Be smart! Rule, tax and regulate them. Aye man, its easier as it seems.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 3 years ago

FDR is my leader even though he was from a wealthy family. He understood human greed and it's power to cause destruction.

[-] 1 points by npowell85 (249) from Montana City, Mt 3 years ago

so you are for marijuana prohibition then? FDR was in office while Anslinger was spouting off about the evils of marijuana and running a government (FDR's government) sponsored smear campaign. and he's your leader...

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 3 years ago

If I voted for Obama, doesn't mean that I agree with him on every issue, same is the case with FDR. On a side note, I don't support prohibition of any drugs/alcohol etc.

[-] 1 points by npowell85 (249) from Montana City, Mt 3 years ago

no I mean who determined how the demand/demands for the group would be decided and how they would be presented? We have a list of 13 demands and more being proposed all the time but nobody is really debating anything. People are just saying "this is what I want" not "this is what is best for everyone, and here's why. What do you think?" and in my opinion, this is not a very effective way. People should be debating and discussing the root cause of these issues not just listing everyone's complaints and ideas

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 3 years ago

The people who are suggesting these demands are already aware what is best for everyone and why. We borrow common sense from everybody and just validate if that makes sense or not.

[-] 0 points by npowell85 (249) from Montana City, Mt 3 years ago

I would argue that you are no better than the politicians if that is what you believe. I am certainly a part of the 99% and I am not any more okay with you imposing your will on me than the current government.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 3 years ago

God bless you. :)

[-] 1 points by Bizinuez (120) from Raleigh, NC 3 years ago

Then get out there in Montana City and start your own General Assembly. We will put it together with ours. The good ideas based on honesty, open-mindedness, and willingness to bring actual good to the world will rise to the top. Those that don't, won't. If you want to be selfish, it IS your right to do so. But if that is your single-minded objective, you might ask yourself if you are part of the problem. I won't tell you that you are. Figure that part out for yourself. Be well.

[-] 0 points by npowell85 (249) from Montana City, Mt 3 years ago

how is disagreeing with your methodology and wanting my voice to be heard being selfish? My point is that there has been no serious debate over what you are "demanding" on behalf of the American people. You are all asking for these huge entitlement programs and offering no way to pay for it, you are advocating the redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom (the same thing you are protesting in reverse if I understand correctly), you are accusing people of crimes without providing evidence, and you are saying that anybody who doesn't fall in line with you is part of the problem. Well that is not democratic. You are simply trying to replace our once great democracy with you own socialistic and in some cases anarchist ideology.

[-] 1 points by Bizinuez (120) from Raleigh, NC 3 years ago

Ah here we go. We had to bring the "S"-word into it. Here's a tip, npowell85, this Once Great Democracy was a hell of alot more socialist than it is now. The Eisenhower administration had a 90% tax on the highest bracket. That is not a typo. Niner Zero. And it is considered the most prosperous time in America. This nation NEEDS more progressive taxation. The reason these folks aren't accused of "crimes" is because they used their money and influence to make it legal to steal, but only if you do it the way they do. And no, the average every day 99%er can't just up and do what they did. Look up the concept of "Barriers to Entry." If to your mind a bit of socialism runs completely counter to democracy, you may want to educate yourself on "what words mean." I know you are frustrated, but you've been sold a bill of goods. Question us, that's fine. We can take it. But also open your mind and question THEM. We're here to help. When is the last time you heard that from Wall Street? Come on out, you will get a bowl of ramen from a hippy anarchist socialist pinko. And wouldn't that be horrible.