Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A request for a discussion on our stance on refusing to endorse political candidates

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 11, 2012, 3:20 a.m. EST by c112114 (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I think the OWS movement should not be afraid of supporting candidates that promote the values that we promote. I believe that we should not allow candidates to spam our forums, but we should be open to dialog and debate regarding which candidates best support our cause. We as the OWS are a political movement, whether you want to believe it or not, so why not be more open about political issues. Once again, for the sake of intelligent discourse about relevant issues we should not be afraid to discuss the positions and maybe even endorse (with near unaminous agreement of course) a political candidate.

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jomojo (562) 12 years ago

I think the opposition is for protecting the donations collected from being taxed. We can promote candidates, the owners of the donations can't. (theory)

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

Let me guess.............

It's J Paul Getty?

[-] 1 points by c112114 (5) 12 years ago

Not sure I understand. Who is J Paul Getty?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Getty_III

In early 1971, he was expelled from St. George's English School (later St. George's British International School), in Rome, Italy. His father moved back to England, and at 3am on 10 July 1973, Getty was kidnapped in the Piazza Farnese in Rome.[1] A ransom note was received, demanding $17 million in exchange for his safe return. When that ransom message arrived, some family members suspected the kidnapping was merely a ploy by the rebellious youngster as he had frequently joked about staging his own kidnapping to extract money from his frugal grandfather. He was blindfolded and imprisoned in a mountain hideout. A second demand was received, but had been delayed by an Italian postal strike.[3] Jean Paul Getty II asked his father for the money, but was refused. Getty Sr. argued that were he to pay the ransom, then his 14 other grandchildren could likely be kidnapped as well. In November 1973, an envelope containing a lock of hair and a human ear was delivered to a daily newspaper with a threat of further mutilation of Paul, unless $3.2 million was paid: "This is Paul's ear. If we don't get some money within 10 days, then the other ear will arrive. In other words, he will arrive in little bits."[4]

At this point Getty Sr. agreed to pay a ransom, although he would only pay $2.2 million because that was the maximum amount that was tax deductible. He loaned the remainder to his son who was responsible for repaying the sum at 4% interest.[3] The reluctant Getty Sr. negotiated a deal and got his grandson back for about $2.9 million. Getty III was found alive in southern Italy on 15 December 1973, shortly after the ransom was paid.[5]

Nine of the kidnappers were apprehended: a carpenter, a hospital orderly, an ex-con and an olive-oil dealer from Calabria, as well as high-ranking members of the 'Ndrangheta – a Mafia-type organization in Calabria – such as Girolamo Piromalli and Saverio Mammoliti.[5] Two were convicted and sent to prison; the others, including the 'Ndrangheta bosses, were acquitted for lack of evidence. Most of the ransom money was never recovered.[6][7]

In 1977, Getty had an operation to rebuild the ear that had been cut off by his kidnappers.[1]

A. J. Quinnell used Getty's kidnapping as one piece of inspiration for his book Man on Fire.[8]

[-] 1 points by c112114 (5) 12 years ago

This doesn't seem to be on topic. If you have something to discuss with respect to my post then I would be more than happy to talk about it.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 12 years ago

The reason I believe it is on topic, is the reason why #ows won't name a candidate; if they/we do name one, they will either be kidnapped, or have a nice little light plane crash, or simply have their brains blown out.

If you get my drift.

[-] 1 points by c112114 (5) 12 years ago

Oh I see. That as an interesting problem. If the candidates acknowledge this possibility and want to chance it then perhaps we shouldn't get in their way? If one of someone does die mysteriously then wouldn't that also give more reason to rally and support our cause (as callous as that sounds)?