Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Is there anything that everyone agrees upon ?

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 26, 2012, 11:06 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This would be an important starting point , one we can grow and build upon.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

In a general sense there is agreement. The Declaration of Occupation is a good example, it lists general offenses and grievances for all. There is also agreement when goals remain vague. There just doesn't seem to be much once you start getting into specifics and few seem willing to work politically for a solution.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

what suggestion would you make ? politically

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

I had hoped that when OWS got started they would use their position as a national movement to recruit good candidates (perhaps from the ranks of the volunteer lawyers) and run them in primaries for congressional and senate seats in districts across the country. I visualized even losses as potential victories when conventional candidates realized the message of reform was backed up by people actually voting.

There was initially a lot of talk comparing OWS to the civil rights and anti-war movements. Both achieved a measure of success through the political system. I see groups like the AARP, NRA, NOW and many others using their voting power to shape laws.

My one vote or letters to officials do little. Harnessing thousands in each congressional district has potential though. Unfortunately OWS and all the other occupy groups tended more toward an anarcho-syndicalist model and chose to go a different way. I think the system is broken, their majority appears to see it as hopeless. So we sit exchanging ideas while we let everything stay the same.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


political parties will not listen to OWS unless OWS votes

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

I was asked for my opinion, I gave it, OWS feels differently that's just life. Voting is certainly why politicians listen to the , NAACP, AARP, unions, environmental groups, and any other organization. It's harder but more effective then just talking and marching. You may get a few to listen if they feel their voters find OWS sympathetic, more would if they believed OWS could make reelection more secure.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Thanks for sharing.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

No problem. I'm a lost cause I suppose, I still have faith the system could be fixed.

[-] -2 points by owsleader2013 (-1) 6 years ago

OMG 'lawyers' OWS lawyers ...

Why is it that everytime somebody offers a solution on OWS it always involves the status quo??

The lawyers are the problem in the USA, the US senate and almost all offices in the USA are held 90% by lawyers, ... they FUCK the american people left and right.

The first step to restoring america is is that anybody but a lawyer should be a judge and/or a politician.

Representation can only come from the people, all that lawyers do is obfuscate, lie, cheat, and steal, and apologize for government sanctioned murder.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

Lighten up bud, it was a suggestion, I was asked my opinion and gave it. The thought on lawyers came from conversations back in October, the complaint then was that few in occupy knew much about government or how to get into a primary or on a ballot.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City


This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on September 29, 2011 Translations: French, Slovak, Spanish, German, Italian, Arabic, Portuguese [all translations »]

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

It is my understanding that the founders of OWS do not support this declaration .. am I wrong ?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

??????????? why do u think that ?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

correct me if I am wrong, this declaration was drawn up by a lawyer of an arrested protestor?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

hehe .. ;) nope... you are talking about the "99% Declaration" ... two different things

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago
  1. Super PACs are a bad idea.
  2. Corporate lobbyists should have less influence.
[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago
  1. What are Super PACs ?

  2. Corporations bring a lot of innovation and efficiency to the economy in terms of production, allocation of goods, job creation..

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

Of course corporations do good things. I'm an entrepreneur. I've spent my life launching startup companies. But they should not have more influence over our government than we do, as individuals.

Super PACs

The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed the "super PAC". They are officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees". Provided they are operated correctly, they can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups.[14] The super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. Firstly, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Secondly, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited.[15]

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are independent. However, many people held a view early in the 2012 campaign that a candidate may "talk to his associated super PAC via the media. And the super PAC can listen, like everybody else." Individuals making claims like this included: journalist Peter Grier; Rick Hasen, an attorney and contributor to the Election Law Journal who was described as being an election law expert,[16]; and Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the United States Federal Election Commission who acted as a consulting attorney for TV satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.[17]

Even absent a formal connection to a campaign, super PACs openly supported particular candidacies. Typically, they did so by financing negative ads costing tens of millions of dollars.[18] In February 2012 the New York Times described several super PACs that were run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.[19] Some PACs attracted large donations from a candidate's associates. For example, by January 2012, Romney's associates contributed nearly $5 million dollars for his 2008 and 2012 runs.[20] In 2011, one Super PAC supporting President Barack Obama raised $4.4 million.[21]


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I am not clear on their purpose ..?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

They collect unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaign advertising.


[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

so how is this bad ? it appears to anonymous donations ..?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Less than 180 individuals have funded 80% of all the money - tens upon tens of millions of dollars - spent so far on political advertising in the Republican primaries via SuperPACs. How is that good? Do you actually like the fact that the democratic process is being bought by a handful of individuals, and anonymously at that? Really?

I'm not a Republican, but if I were, I would be outraged.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Does the person who spends the most money on advertising win ?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Generally, yes. And when a number of such plutocrats combine their money, the very nature of the debate is altered, and the electorate it fed a steady stream of whatever agenda/propaganda the plutocrats determine.

Does the electorate - average Mom and Pop business owners or the average worker - have the same kind of organized money to spend on political campaigns or specific issues it wants addressed? No; it's voice is marginalized by the money, and the issues being debated are determined by the money. At the same time public opinion is being influenced, not by the candidates, but by those who saturate the airwaves with whatever messages THEY want the electorate to think about, and think about is very specific ways. It's called manipulation.

Rank and file Republicans have been railing at "professional" politicians for as long as I can remember. The millions of dollars spent by a very few people on their behalf is what makes them professionals: they represent the interests of those who give them all that cash and exposure. It creates the conditions for nothing other than quid pro quo actions. The very issues they pursue once in office, let alone the specific legislation they push, is, to understate the issue, influenced by the moneyed few.

I happen to believe in democracy. I am always inspired by the words "of the people, by the people, for the people". These SuperPACs undermine the meaning of those words completely.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

does the advertising manipulate the voter enough to control the vote ? not likely , but I agree there is a strong influence , and the media is very good at it. Candidates have to be very clear and careful what they say .. and do ..

Does the system work ? do we eventually get the right leadership ?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Obviously, not only do we not get the right leadership, but we also don't get the right legislative agenda. The very debate - the issues themselves kicked around in that debate - is determined by the money, so the electorate votes only on what is put on the menu by those few moneyed interests. It winds up voting for column A or column B, both of which are predetermined. When is the last time we witnessed a Teddy Roosevelt in this country?

Seriously, do you REALLY think that the influence of money on politics is not corrosive? Why aren't you, as a supposedly "pure" Republican or Libertardian, offended beyond belief? And if not, why the f*ck are you even on this site, one dedicated to a movement that seeks to get money out of politics?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I have yet to see evidence of politics being corupted by the influence of money. And the very idea that there is so much focus on this brings my concern to what is the true motive ?

I see many good policies made by our government that effects all peoples . to make the connection that this is somehow influenced by wealth is nonsense .

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

The true motive is to write legislation that advantages those who have at the expense of those who don't. The motive is untrammeled power and unlimited wealth. It's effect has been the concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a few, who then exert more influence to concentrate that wealth even further. When 50% of the American population lives at or below the poverty level, when 400 individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000, that is the result. When anthropogenic climate change is denied by Senators funded by oil and coal companies, and block legislation to limit any carbon emissions, that is an example of money driving policy (and public opinion) that risks the health of the entire planet.

Some legislative crumbs are thrown the citizenry's way, largely to keep them from outright rebellion. But the really big issues, like deregulating the banks and allowing them to collapse the economy, throwing tens of millions into destitution, or reforming health care that preserves the fee for service model, and insurance giant and Big Pharma profits while leaving millions still without access, are only two such big issues decided by the money and the money alone.

If you see no evidence of money corrupting government, you are the most willfully blind person on the planet (or the dumbest; take your pick). And it begs the question again: why are you here on a site that is all about fighting that corruption if you don't yourself see it?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Was it money in politics that prevented the keystone pipeline ? Or was it setting the bar a little higher for environmental concerns.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

First, that pipeline has not been cancelled, only delayed pending review, and that was only the result of literally millions of people signing petitions and applying pressure to get it stopped.. The delay was hardly voluntary, and the initial impulse was nothing if not pro-corporate. The push to fast track it, however, in violation of the existing rules, was due to the influence of money alone. Nor has the bar been set any higher, since the same administration that has simply insisted that the established review process be followed is also allowing drilling to go forward in the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico, despite the recent disaster in the Gulf.

Second, finding one or two acts of middling decency among an entire systemic disgrace proves nothing. If you are so convinced that little or nothing is wrong, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Your refusal to answer speaks volumes about your motivations.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

perhaps it's time we look at this motive and create a new motive ..

The American Dream was to attain high power and wealth .. it's undeniable .. but we now see a new motive begining to emerge ..something of equality of life and with this new motive , new regulations will also emerge.

Show me the evidence .. I have been listening to blatant accusations against members of parliament , but yet to see evidence.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Members of parliament? This is America. We don't have parliament.

The establishment of America was to throw of the Oligarchy of Great Britain and replace it with Democracy and equal opportunity. Equality is in the founding principles of the country. The American Dream did not include unfettered power over the population; it was only about attaining success.

Do you want to see corporate influence on politicians and legislation?Look to Senator Inhofe alone. Look to Max Baucus, and Joe Lieberman. Look to Tom DeLay. Look at teh workings of ALEC. Look a teh machinations of the Koch Brothers and their influence on environmental legislation. Look at Exxon's influence. Who do you suppose pushed for the repeal of Glass/Stegall? Did banking interests who underwrote various elected officials really have nothing to do with that? How many do you require? The documentation could fill a library. I have posted several sources throughout these fora.

And for the third time, if you don't see a problem, why are you here? Is this just an exercise in mental masturbation for you, or is there another purpose?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

not always.... but .... often the BEST person does not have the money to get exposure ... because of pac's and bought media money controls who does get exposure

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

It would all just be a really big waste of the rich folk money if we all think for our selves and avoid believing things, even if they do fit our personal beliefs.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

A clear sky on earth is normally blue,

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Actually, it's azure. Just to be accurate..........:)

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Yes it is. The blue is created with sunlight shining through the ozone. On some days its a beautiful blue !

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Yes, get money out of politics, restore Glass Steagall, increase access to higher education, and a meaningful stimulus that could revitalize our economy. I think most agree on these basic points (and there's probably something very close to unanimous agreement on getting money out of politics & restoring Glass Steagall).

I keep hearing this critique that OWS can't make up its mind, but I seriously have no idea what that's all about? I mean, let's compare ourselves to the tea party for a moment. Yeah sure, the tea party got some congressmen elected, but what did that accomplish? As far as I can tell, not a single damn thing. Sure, they made a lot of noise, but in the end, they were manipulated into cutting deals (and our deficit isn't one penny smaller because of the tea party).

And that was it ... they shot their load I guess, and wasted perfectly good semen on politics, in the misguided belief that aligning themselves with politicians could somehow make their dreams come true.

OWS, on the other hand, is just getting warmed up. During these winter months, they've been growing their organization, planting themselves in cities and communities throughout the country, and when they begin holding mass protests again (once it warms up), they won't make the mistake of thinking Washington is something we should cozy up to. Political reform has its place, but it only reaps momentary benefits (that are quickly eviscerated once the people are placated, and return to complacency).

Moreover, even political reform requires forcing politicians to do things they otherwise have no interest in doing (and so it's highly unlikely that we can induce meaningful reforms through partisan politics, although mass protests can influence reform, it has in the past, but as seen during the Vietnam era, enough people power will pressure either party to act, so it doesn't necessarily matter who's in office). Sure, maybe a splinter group comes up with a pledge for political candidates to sign, maybe many OWS supporters will rally for political reform, but at the end of the day, real change only happens if the society changes, and societies only change from the ground up (particularly when you're trying to change a society against the momentum of a corporate culture that owns the media, entertainment, many of our workplaces, and most politicians).

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 6 years ago

(1) I agree that we need "money out of politics" (I use that phrase as codespeak in order to avoid writing a paragraph about it)

(2) I agree that we need to separate retail banking from commercial banking.

(3) I agree that we need to stop illegal home mortgage foreclosures

(4) I agree that we need jobs for all.

(5) I agree that the American Dream is an idea that needs to be reinvigorated

(6) I agree that the cost of higher education needs to be brought in check

(7) I agree that there's too much BS and not enough real work getting done here at this forum (with the exception of a couple of threads)

(8) I agree that at least as a starting point, the 99D should be supported by all here.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Jobs for all.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 6 years ago

a basic ralling point for many in ows and across the nation is Get Money Out Of Politics

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I have been asking for evidence of infact influence by money in politics, and have yet to receive any.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 6 years ago

maybe you'll get it for x-mas 2012!

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Why ask for evidence when you can assume?? Did you know that George Bush had a dozen Somali male concubines? I haven't seen any evidence that he did't!!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

Pretty good collection of issues many can agree on from therising.


[-] 0 points by survivor919 (-2) 6 years ago

Farts stink

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 6 years ago

I think we can all agree that liberal democrats are lazy whiners and they will do anything they can to slide their hands into the pockets of everyone else. We can agree on that.

[-] -2 points by newman (-58) 6 years ago

Can we all agree that Obummer is nothing more than a assClown????

[-] 1 points by uhandleit (43) 6 years ago

speak for yourself

[-] -2 points by Rennaye (34) 6 years ago

We'd all be fine if we didn't have infiltrators like you insisting that we're all divided. You guys are becoming more obvious by the day.