Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Let's Embrace Right Wingers Who Care About Occupy

Posted 1 year ago on June 8, 2013, 9:27 a.m. EST by barbarosa (-5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Some right wingers care about Occupy. Some of them want to see money out of politics just like we do. The last polls show that up to 10% of occupiers are right wingers. This site also claims the movement accepts people from all color, creed, and political affiliation.

Let's start building the 99% for real. Let's start building uniting over the common problems we all face.

The first step is to stop attacking people based on their political affiliations. Debate with others in a proper manner. Don't call others "right wing shills" or "Obamapologists". We should also stop petty name calling, and the use of other types of insults. Either debate like a polite adult, or don't debate at all.

It's time to unite. That's done by respecting the views of everyone here. We can work together, even if we don't agree on everything. Disagreements are normal and healthy. Turning them into personal attacks is not.

134 Comments

134 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the right wing is already united with the left wing in government

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

Very few people here are actually interested in transcending partisan affiliations.


Trans-Partisan Cooperative Voting: Establishing Political Accountability

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/

Voter public control through the application of Free Democracy Affidavits http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ or FreeDA can be the solution to bringing about political accountability under conditions in which ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls, are not an option. For the People to be free, politicians must be legally bound to serving the specific interests of the People rather than the interests of the corporations. By refusing to vote for any candidate who doesn't sign an affidavit legally committing that candidate to supporting the will of the People, voters will be able to exercise their democratic power to hold the candidates who do sign and are elected, legally accountable. However, VOTERS MUST REMAIN UNITED ACROSS PARTY LINES IN THEIR AGREEMENT ON THE AFFIDAVITS AND IN THEIR REFUSAL TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO WON'T SIGN THE AFFIDAVITS. This trans-partisan cooperation is essential to the success of bringing about permanent political reform, taking freedom into our own hands. The greatest support shall come from the participation of independent voters. If, initially, no candidates are willing to sign in the election in which the affidavits are first presented, it will only be a matter of time before both partisan and non-partisan willing candidates emerge from among the FreeDA supporters in subsequent elections. In accordance with amendments 6, 7, 8, and 9, of the Liberty Bill, the FreeDA signers would also be signing on to affirmations of not accepting campaign contributions from corporations and non-profits, not accepting gifts from special interests once in office, making all communication with lobbyists open to the press and the public, and not having an account with a private bank. In support of such candidates, a FreeDA 501(c)4 PAC would receive contributions to fund ads for all of the FreeDA signers collectively.

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

I like that.... but maybe best if we organize to be able to immediately recall any elected official as soon as it has been determined that they have self interests in conflict with the interests of the people...

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year ago

That was tried in Wisconsin and is therefore subject to failure, crushing people's hopes after a lot of effort has been put forth. It's hard to get people to organize to do anything especially if half the people are likely to be opposed to the effort due to partisan affiliations. Uniting all of those partisan affiliations in the beginning through a legal document avoids this as any political betrayal will be a betrayal of all the people and an actual crime to be prosecuted with the backing of all the people.

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

good point

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Why? Getting harder?

The only things that the right wingers care about is coopting this place.
There has been an agonizing amount of time dedicated to we should only talk about those things that we are going to agree on.

Hell to the no.

The rethuglicans are currently trying to jack up student loans. The Tea Tolers are steady trying to kick in pro-life legislation or creating scandals where none exists because they want to alter the tax code and privatize the IRS and the post office. The libertopians, specifically, Adam Kokesh is calling for an armed revolution based on fear tactics.

No.

You think sticking up one article recognizing the high stakes testing movement somehow makes it all the better? How about one article that recognizes the Koch brothers?

How about unions? Oh, yeah, http://occupywallst.org/forum/red-cross-workers-still-on-strike-still-no-negotia/

You want to stab people in the back on a repeated basis and then you want to force people to be nice to you.

No.

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Why bother with Occupy if you are against the fundamental principal of this post-political movement which is to bring people together from all political affiliations over common ground to form the 99%, and fight a problem that affects us all, politicians corrupted by the 1%?

Why not support a group or movement which shares your ideology? A group that caters to your 50% of the population with the goal of attacking the other 50%. You should work for the democrats.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oooooops!

This begs an extremely important question.

What on the "right" wing agenda, do you think OWS should adopt and support?

1.) The destruction of women's rights?

2.) The continued and strengthening of the demonization of LBGT's and their rights?

3.) The privatization of everything??

4.) The continued demonization and destruction of labor unions and workers rights?

5.) The teaching of creationism and faith healing as science?

6.) The expansion of privitized, profiteered prisons, and the contractual quotas they demand?

7.) The continued demonization liberals, ala FLAKESnews and cohorts like Limbaugh?

8.) ALEC?

9.) Voter purges and the impediments to voting that creates?

10.) The SPN?

There's more, but 10 should be enough for now.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hehe.... yeah... I've been trying to think of something positive the GOP supports .... and the only thing I can think of is Buddy Romer's stand against the wall street banks .... but he is definitely alone there...

oh... yeah... I think they like Mom & Apple Pie

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Personally?

I don't expect the poster to address a single one of the questions.

I'll next be asking....What olive branch have they offered to OWS?

[+] -5 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

What olive branch have you offered to them? You can't expect much from people when you attack them day and night with stereotypes. No one gives olive branches to bigots.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I've often offered the olive branch of truth.

Again and again and again.

I still reject your insults, as they are false.

It's just your way of avoiding truthful questions.

[+] -4 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Why do you throw your integrity in the garbage and choose to support a movement which has a core philosophy you so strongly disagree with?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Do you have a link to prove yet another idiotic accusation?

All you're doing here, is continuing to avoid answering the questions your own thread begged to be asked.

Is this a sign of your own transference?

[+] -4 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Do you have a link to prove yet another idiotic accusation?

Any one of your comments demonstrates it.

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

you know Shooz... maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot... by calling these criminals "right" wing ?..... when truly they are simply fascists.... who want to be seen as "right" wing....

maybe better to call them fascists & corporatists ... and try to sever their affiliation with the right...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"Right " wing has always been the closest to fascism.

Often overlooked, is their co-option of religion to support their agenda.

Sinclair Lewis understood...

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

yeah likely so... however.... it would be better to embrace the few "right" wingers who are not fascists... moving them towards support of Occupy issues.... we have to understand that there are many who are frustrated and looking for a way out ... without joining the lefties .... that's Opportunity to gain their support ... if we stop promoting the left ... and honestly there are many politician's on the left who have sold out also .... We need our own "Voting Block" ... not really a "Party" because we want Independents .(those that stand on what is right... not what is politically & monetarily profitable) .... no ?

  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can get MSM attention
  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can get on ballots
  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can raise money
  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can get Independents elected
  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can get bad laws overturned
  • our own "Voting Block" --- which can get corrupt politicians recalled

what can we call something like that w/o becoming a "Party" ?

how bout ; "The People's Voice" ?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I agree.

A long time ago, I suggested "The Open Source Party, it would field candidates that would answer to a GA.

I got good response, in those days.

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Yes, like we call religious terrorists extremists to separate them from the vast majority of moderate religious people. Shooz will never agree to that. He likes to paint people with a very broad brush, to combine millions upon millions of complex individuals in a simple "right wing" box. Bigots love stereotypes.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

3 is the only good one...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Good for what?

Corporate tyranny?

I take you didn't see the thread on a profiteered prison in Mississippi?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Most corporations are public property, especially those on the Stock market.

Very little is truly Private in this day and age. If corporations were truly Private then they would stay out of government.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I guess that's a no, huh?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mississippi-profit-prison-gets-sued/

Read it and weep. If you have a shred of decency, you will be up in arms.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

so you think that the fact that these prisons are "private"(even though they are funded by Public money) is the reason that the people working there are ignorant and violent?

Capitalism is the cause of violence and ignorance in this world.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Read the link, before you make assumptions.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I did read the link and I still fail to understand how the fact that these prisons are "private" causes the people working in them to be ignorant and violent.

Capitalism and Socialism are equally as bad, but not because either cause people to be violent and ignorant. They are bad because they fail to treat people like people and humans like humans.

These people are violent and ignorant because american society praises and rewards and violent and ignorant.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

People who are ignorant and violent are much better for the bottom line than properly trained and experienced personnel.

As far as your last sentence?

Speak for yourself.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I am speaking for myself. It is of my own opinion that violent and ignorant people are violent and ignorant because they were taught to be violent and ignorant and are unwilling to stand up for themselves.

These people werre violent and ignorant far before they got hired at any prison. private, public or otherwise.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"american society praises and rewards and violent and ignorant."

I guess that explains FLAKESnews and the acceptance of prisons like the one in the link.

Unfortunately, you have accepted it yourself. Not an ounce of compassion.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What? I am against ALL prisons, not just the private ones. It is an abomination that there is such a need for prisons in america.

If more time was spent at the library, then maybe there wouldnt be a need for prisons in the first place.

The Buddha says that having compassion for yourself is the same as having compassion for all.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You have yet to demonstrate the compassion of Buddhism.

You didn't even comment on the "prisoners" in the prison of the link.

You ignored them.

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Occupy is not about accepting various political ideas, but accepting people of various political affiliations. All conservatives don't agree with the points you mentioned above. You think they do because of your crude stereotype fulled by your bigoted views. There are conservatives who are gay for example, and respect gay rights. People are complex individuals. You cannot box them in either left or right wing and think they fit there perfectly. Life's not like that.

We have commonalities like wanting to remove corruption from politics. That's what Occupy is all about. That's why it was created, and that's why it is not a political movement. It remained out of politics so that it could cater to all political affiliations.

I really don't understand why you support (or pretend to support) a movement with a founding principle you disagree with. It makes not sense. You have no integrity.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're repeating yourself and ignoring yet more honest questions asked of you.

You have provided 0 links to support your hypothesis.

I can provide links to all 10 and more.

So I ask you again, without guile.

Which of these things of the "right" wing should OWS support?

Which of these things support OWS?

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Read the front page of this website, it says that Occupy accepts people of all political affiliations. Why are you supporting Occupy if you are against this core idea, the idea of the 99%?

The question is not if right wingers support Occupy, but that Occupy does support right wingers by definition, so why did you choose to support Occupy if you strongly disagree with this core idea?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BS = The question is not if right wingers support Occupy, but that Occupy does support right wingers by definition

Try again polyp.

OWS Occupy welcomes those that support OWS Occupy ideals.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I do accept them, I'm just asking you which of those items we should be endorsing.

It's your thread, so c'mon.....explain yourself.

Will you be in Kalamazoo in August??

You never did answer.

How come you never answer anything?

Are you a bot?

Incapable of truly understanding anything outside your program?

If so, then I understand your inability to answer honest questions, and that you can only respond with the same insults.

Chat bots are so limited.

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

We don't have to endorse any of them. Occupy is not about endorsing the particular points of particular parties. It's about welcoming people of all political affiliations, not welcoming ideas of all political affiliations. Big big difference.

The point is, you shouldn't attack right wingers. That's anti-Occupy. Attack people individually if you want. Attack them on the points they raise which you disagree with. Don't put them all in one box with a broad term like "right wing" which is about half the US population.

You're divisive. You know it. You do it on purpose. I'm wondering why you throw all your integrity in the garbage. If you don't support the core principle of Occupy to form the 99% around common issues, then why support Occupy at all? You should be in a movement which is focused on bigoted attacks against right wingers. Find a movement that likes name calling, petty insults, logical fallacies, and those kind of tactics that you are so fond of.

Or, start your own movement - "Left Bigots Against Right Wingers"

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Your chat bot is still very limited.

If you are unable to defend your thread, you should delete it..........

you have been completely unable to show me the "right" winger, I'm expected to accept.

They are apparently ghosts that only exist in your mind and the program of your chat bots.

It's the only logical explanation for your inability to answer honest questions with anything other than insults.

Use of transference and an adamant refusal to answer honest questions is in the teabag(R) forum disruption video.....

Are you aware of that?

I am.

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

you have been completely unable to show me the "right" winger, I'm expected to accept.

We are the 99% means everyone not in the 1% economic bracket.

You are expected to accept anyone in the 99% bracket, no matter what skin color, religious affiliations, political party affiliation, etc...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Shove yet chat bot where the sun don't shine..........:)

Your assumptions too.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey polyp

If they are gay and conservative - they aren't republican - they are independent - because the corp(se)oRATist/republican party is against gays.

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Conservatives fall under the generalization of right wingers. Shooz is a bigot, he attacks all right wingers, including pro-gay conservatives. He calls people "right wing shills" essentially grouping millions upon millions of complex individuals each with their ideas and opinions into one simple box. Bigots love grand stereotypes.

Are you also against Occupy's most basic principle of playing out of politics to bring the left and right together over common problems thus forming the 99%? Like shooz, do you have no integrity at all?

What's this fetish you guys have of supporting (or claiming to support) movements with basic philosophies you so strongly disagree with?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

polyp jump back into Ur trashy-can. The only conservatives I have a problem with are the ones who back the current republican/corp(se)oRATist party as well as the Koch party conservatives ( TP ).

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

OK Mario, but Luigi always uses the term "right wing shills" to box in everyone who doesn't identify as leftist so that he can attack them all at once like a nice bigot. I don't know why you jumped in this conversation. It wasn't about you. I guess Batman must come to save his Robin.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

As U R a paid shill - and as the republican/corp(se)oRATist/T party is the home ground of the shills. It may not be very nice to refer to them or U as right wingers - but that is their main field of operations - the right wing.

Conservatives who support OWS/Occupy really should have no problem with that as they have removed themselves from those parties. And rather then considering themselves as right wing conservatives - they most likely ( if honest ) consider themselves more centrist then left or right.

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Do you consider conservatives as right or left wing? Luigi attacks all right wingers. He calls them "right wing shills". So, if you consider conservatives as being right wing, then he attacks them all with his big bigoted stroke of stereotype.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Who's "Luigi" Mr. Puppet?

Do you have a link to where he said those things?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Show me the link where I said that!!

Show me the link where I called a you "right wing shill", or admit that you're lying ass, fucked up, piece of shit, asshole.

In fact......Have it tattooed on your forehead.

And leave and never come back to this forum again.

I've been nothing but patient with you and your constant insults.

Now prove it!!!

C'mon prove your lies!!!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

and you always attack users together in the form of a mob attack.

Nope - just shills like Ur self. And U R the worst type of shill. U R paid to B here. Also U have no problem with putting together a sockpuppet crowd to use in ganging up on OWS/Occupy supporters ( not shills like U ) to get them to leave.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U R calling for that absolute - as there R conservative progressives there R also progressive conservatives. The only thing shooz has demonstrated to me is his disgust of the corp(se)oRATist's of the right - a disgust I share as well. Stop trying to attribute Ur thoughts to someone else - Paid Shill Polyp.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

How many times have you been banned now?

Shut up and sit down you pathetic douche bag.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - imagine that I just gave at least 100 twinkles in appreciation.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Thanks. I have no idea where these pathetic worms keep thinking that they really are that slick. They aren't.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well polyp is trashy-can - so it started out delusional.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Or something like that. I am enjoying watching it's little fan club jump right in. Makes this real cozy. But, at least we know exactly who is who.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep trashy has been busy creating a crowd of clowns - um - I mean sockpuppets - weeeell? - crowd of clown sockpuppets - so that it has something it can relate to and will support it's BS when it remembers that it is itself that it is commenting to.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 1 year ago

I've heard right wingers mention occupy wallstreet. I think some kind of regret ridiculing the protests. Why don't we just protest corporate influence in the government. That's something we can all agree with I think.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Can they, or you, first negate these dangers?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/the-enemies-within-the-20-most-dangerous-conservatives-and-their-organizations/

Or even admit that they are a very real danger?

[-] -3 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

There are extremists in all groups. Conservatives, progressives, anarchists, Christians, Muslims, etc... You'll find dangerous individuals in all these groups. Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was an anarcho-primitivist. Extremely left wing.

Most people in these groups are not dangerous at all. They just have various views.

To think all right wingers, conservatives, republicans, etc... are dangerous is like thinking all Muslims are terrorists. It's a shallow and bigoted view. Luckily for us, most people are smart enough to realize that Occupiers are not like the Unabomber, that not all anarchists are the same. Some do. Like you they use labels to reduce complex individuals into crud stereotypes.

The truth is there are already right wingers amongst Occupy. Most conservatives agree that corruption in politics is a bad thing. There are many things that unite us if we decide to look beyond crud stereotypes based on the worst individuals that form a group.

If you want to separate people between left and right wings in a crud way, why are you on this Occupy website? Why not go on some kind of "attack the right" at all cost site? Occupy is not about creating a bigger gap, it's about bringing everyone together, the 99%, over common ground.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

If you're going to stick up for all that?

You should explain how it's good for anything at all.

All 20 of them, please.

You didn't deal with even one. You just changed the subject.

Actually.....the conse(R)atives you're speaking of HATE all things liberal.

And that's all they've ever come here for. To tear at liberals.

I've met them in REAL life and know who they are.

I've been verbally attacked by them in public.

Have you?

When they start offering olive branches, I will respond in kind.

I asked you before to show who on this site you think these "supporters" are.

You failed.

I talked to one here the other day, that thought it was just fine, that in Texas you can shoot and kill a prostitute for failure to provide anal sex.

If you think that's OK? that that's an olive branch to OWS?

It's you who's mistaken.

I could also add the lack of interest in the Mississippi Profiteered prison thread.

You ignored it too.

I suppose you will be ignoring Kalamazoo this August as well?

If they want love? Let them give a little.

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

So, why do you support Occupy? It seems you are dead against its most basic principle. Have you lost all integrity. You are allowed your point of view, for sure. But, why not support a movement that has a similar point of view. Yours is completely antithetical with Occupy, yet you are here everyday. You're like an atheist who spends all his time in church. Strange.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Why should I answer your questions, when you didn't answer or even acknowledge a single one of mine?

Not a one.

All 20 of those are a reality.

Real live actual people, that do very damaging things.

Strange that you endorse them by ignoring them.

I'll ask again.

Will you be in Kalamazoo this August?

[-] -2 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Why should I answer your questions, when you didn't answer or even acknowledge a single one of mine?

You don't have to answer. It was rhetorical. Designed to make you think. I don't care if you have an integrity problem. It's your business if you want to support movements you don't believe in.

Strange that you endorse them by ignoring them.

Nope, I don't endorse them. You misunderstand. Unlike you, I am not a bigot. I don't take a few examples of Muslim terrorists then say that all Muslims are bad. I don't take a few examples of dangerous conservatives, then say that all conservatives are evil. I'll leave the crude stereotyping and anti-Occupy behavior to you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I didn't ask you to "like" them.

I asked YOU to address all 20 of them.

Then you insulted me.............again.

I'm beginning to run out of other cheeks.

I've given you a link with 20 actual issues to address. Please refrain from personal insults and address them.

[-] -1 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

You're like a mini golf player in a chess club. An atheist in a church. A black man at a KKK meeting. So strange, someone at Occupy against the idea of bringing the people together as the 99% to fight our common problems. Complete and absolute lack of integrity.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Still with the insults???

Still in avoidance mode?

It's your puppets that have always demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and an extreme childishness.

Your refusal to ever honestly answer any honest question asked of you doesn't help either.

You've chosen insults over truth....every single time.

no exceptions..

[+] -4 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

That wasn't an insult. It was a remark on how strange it is that you support (or claim to support) a movement with a core philosophy you strongly disagree with.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Transference.

You have yet to clarify your suggested position.

Mr. Puppet?

You should be very ashamed of yourself.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Yes- it would be nice if we could attract right wingers
who really want to fight against the 1%.


But, who among our "ususal" supporters are willing to admit the truth:


The only path to change is via electing pro-99% politicians
and
yes - that means voting D
and
no teaparty type ( old or new ) will ever vote D


sure, all tp people are not alike-

koch lemmings
religious nuts
grover's lemmings
evangelicals
the rich


but here are some of the facts
that gives the tp the courage to believe:

michelle bachmann is honest
the earth is 6000 years old
govenment is the enemy
rick perry has a brain
evolution is a theory
willard does not lie
steve king is sane
clinton's adultery was a crime
ensign's adultery was not a crime
sanford's adultery was not a crime
the civil war was not treason


If OWS is ever to rebuild itself, I feel it needs three elements:

electoral policy to ELECT pro-99%ers
community outreach like Occpy Sandy
actions to educate people who are close to us ( moderates )
...about the 99% - 1% issue

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

agree... but ; )

I don't believe we will get far towards the 99% ... by promoting the "Vote for Dem's" slogan .... better imo... to move ahead of the whole mess ....

"Vote for the Working Class - Vote for the People" ... or something like that.... and if we do happen to have Dem's that are honest and supporting what we want... we support the individual ....

or Independents ... or even Republican's ... if we can find one ;)

in any sense ... we need to do our best to get politicians to move towards the Independent stand.... and we can .... many are fed up

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Yes I agree - "vote D" turns off many here and in NYC OWS that I have worked with. I think true swing votes can accept the "D" - for example that are pro-choice & anti-gun
Personally, I try to minimize the "D" but I am SO agrivated by the anti-D and anti-Obama lies ( yes - he is not a saint ) that "D" does manifest itself in my "pitch".
I made a list of national legislators that I admired - I could not find ONE "R" ! ex-lt.gov Michael Steele & ex-rep Steven LaTourette & David Frum are just about the only Rs I could admire

I feel that progressives such as OWS & Greens, etc should push issues and education and NOT run candidates.
My OWS group stressed issues in the Staten Island congressional race and convinced the D & G to sign on - but the R did not.

Would willard's 47% have been such a big deal without the OWS 99%-1%

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You got any links?

The ones that are here, never came in support.

Not a single one of them.

Not even close.

[-] 4 points by barbarosa (-5) 1 year ago

So what? We should still not call them names which attack right wingers in general. We shouldn't even call them names at all. There are readers who come here, are right wingers, and get turned off by generalized attacks made towards them. If you really feel you need to lower yourself to the use of insults, choose some that aren't general and attack people Occupy could use. You can't build the 99% without right wingers. And, who knows, right wingers that come here for the wrong reasons could change their minds if instead of insulting them you calmly explained your views in a polite way.

Here's an extremely intelligent right winger who came here for serious discourse. He left after people insulted his ideologies as being "right wing". I disagreed with many of his ideas, like gun control, but he had many ideas which resonated with Occupy. He also wanted money out of politics. Read his postings. They are polite, well written with crafted arguments. He's a intellectual whether you disagree with him or not.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/#comment-373463

Here's an old survey from the beginning of the protest indicating percentages by political affiliation.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-demographic-survey-results-will-surprise-you.php

The last survey I saw was 10% for right wingers, but I can't find the link.


In any case, it shouldn't even matter if 0% of right wingers support Occupy at this time. The philosophy of Occupy is to support them to create the 99% by coming together surrounding our common problems. If we keep attacking them it won't work. We have to be better than that! Even if they attack us, we shouldn't attack back. We need to embrace them. Eventually, if we are patient and explain the situation with proper discourse, they will come. You don't make converts by spitting in their faces. When times get tougher and it becomes more and more apparent that corruption in politics is killing us, then they will come if we haven't spent all our time attacking them.

Look at the Turkish protests. The amazing thing is how everyone came together no matter what political affiliation. I still remember the sentence from the news article:

"Those who wanted to kill each other last week became - no exaggeration - comrades on the streets."

Isn't that what you want? How can we become the 99% by pushing away right wingers? It's impossible. We need to stand tall together against the faces of injustice.

Don't forget, people are complex. "Right winger" is a label designed to simplify the world. Things don't work like that. We need to judge people one by one, to hear their ideas and problems, not to box them in with cheap labels.


One trick is to discuss issues where we can easily agree. Like money out of politics and ending corruption. That's one of the reasons Occupy never engaged in a political discourse, because that would mean choosing many stances on many issues. Creating a political party automatically means you lose the support of a part of society. Rather, Occupy wants to focus on the important stuff so that right wingers and left wingers can come together over common ground. Obviously, if you're here to talk about issues clear cut between right and left we won't make any progress, and you'll get into fights with right wingers. Just talk about ending corruption and money in politics with them. Right wingers don't like corruption either.

[-] 2 points by thorson (2) 1 year ago

A good way to recognize disinfo spooks, is to recognize their aims. Those who argue for purity and smallness are Occupy's enemies. The tactic is called divide and conquer. Or, concentrate on the negatives.

To unite towards a shared goal, it is necessary to concentrate on shared wishes and beliefs. The 1%ers are terrified of any effective union for the 99% across ideological and political divides.

The forked tongue servants of the 1% infest this forum.

[-] 2 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

I think this is an important topic. I’m a strong OWS supporter. I believe in the ideals and principals of OWS. The government is corrupt, corporation are viciously greedy and Wall Street are mostly just criminals. I believe those with all my heart and would love to find some way to deal with these bastards.

I’m generally a liberal, but have some very conservative views on some issues. My observation is if you’re not an over-the –top anarchist, black bloc or not seeking the overthrow of the government you are not accepted. In fact you a vilified, called names, bullied and belittled. Now I’m a big boy and can deal with harassment. It seems the extremists have control of this site. They is no tolerance of other points of view. Period.

I hope this site is not representative of OWS in general. I hope OWS really wants to make a difference without purposely maligning people (even those pro-OWS). If this site is OWS then we are doomed. Way too much hate.

So, I say discuss things we can agree on. Just arguing and bitching accomplishes nothing. Sorry some people don’t agree with some of my views. But I’m still not ready to give up on OWS because some people here are jerks.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Those aren't links to "right" wingers that support OWS.

1.) Glib self important BS about purity in political systems. What it isn't, is "right" wing.

2.) "zero respondents who identified Republican"

Need I say more?

I have typed my fingers raw, attempting to reason with them here.

It's as pointless as looking for reason among gun nutters.

They just won't accept it.

You just got here, so I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt, but you really can't know, until you've experienced their hate and bigotry.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Is that why you posted links to the John Birch Society?

Or was it the stuff from prisonplanet?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jupolu (1) 1 year ago

Seems like a fitting definition. Someone who puts all right wingers in one box and attacks all of them. Yap, that's a bigot.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OR, instead of accepting your word, I'll provide the full paragraph that stated the 0%.

"Politically independent As for political leanings, Schoen’s survey recorded that the largest group of respondents, 33 percent, “do not identify with any political party,” followed by 32 percent that identified Democratic and zero respondents who identified Republican. A further 21 percent, again the largest cohesive group, said “both parties” were to blame for the “failure to address our problems.”

Note the part where it says 0% identified as republican.

Why did you lie about that?

You assume a lot. I've tried for the "link" you speak of too.

They didn't came here for that.

They came here to insult us.

Now please if you would, show me the links to "right" wingers, that support OWS.

I can and already have posted links to "left" wingers that do.

[-] 3 points by jupolu (1) 1 year ago

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-demographic-survey-results-will-surprise-you.php

"Among other striking findings, Codero-Guzmán discovered that 70 percent of the survey’s 1,619 respondents identified as politically independent, far-and-away the vast majority, compared to 27.3% Democrats and 2.4% self-identified Republicans."

However, like barbarosa clearly explained, even if there were no right wingers that were amongst our ranks we shouldn't attack them. It's the opposite. We should do everything in our power to get them on our side. It's the only way to create the 99%.

Trying to divide people along party lines is absolutely anti-Occupy.

"Dr. Cordero-Guzmán’s findings strongly reinforce what we’ve known all along: Occupy Wall Street is a post-political movement representing something far greater than failed party politics,"

Now please if you would, show me the links to "right" wingers, that support OWS.

Not important. If there are no such links it means we need to do more efforts to get them amongst our ranks. The solution is not to attack them because of that, but to embrace them instead. It's the only way to create the unity of the 99%.


You misunderstand Occupy at a fundamental level. And, I agree with OTP. The way you label people as right wingers to attack them in generalized fashion is bigoted. The world isn't simple, people aren't simple. You can't just box people in and attack them like that.

There are many right wingers who are against corruption in politics.

You're a sad individual if you pretend to support Occupy philosophy, but then turn your back on the most basic concepts like accepting people of all political affiliations to create a post-political movement where people can unite over common ground.

Look at the Turkish protests. You have a lot to learn.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So I take it you weren't here when the site was infested with gun nutters???

All of them "right" wing.

The sad part is an apparent "new comer" making such accusations, apparently under a couple of different nameplates.

Such childish behavior is frowned upon, for it's dishonesty.

OTP is a very special case, who has posted from the John Birch Society, breitbart, AND the favorite of conspiracy theorists everywhere...prisonplanet, so You have NO room to judge anyone at all.

All three are extremely bigoted, web disinformation purveyors.

He's also notorious as a name caller. You must have either missed that part or glossed over it.

Especially as a new comer.

Or are you a puppet??

If so, it's YOU who has a lot to learn.

Now, if you would be so kind as to provide those links to the wingers you claim are in support, we could continue this conversation on a more productive level.

Otherwise??

I will just consider you a puppet on a string.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Shooz, you may single handedly cause the demise of this site. You hate is out of control. All you do is harass people.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Trashy fan, eh?

Or just a gun nutter sympathizer?

You see, I don't mind if "right" wingers want too come here, but I won't give them another inch.

They don't deserve it. they ever gave one and they took a lot, and they still are.

Look at your dig at Detroit!

Not a bit of understanding or sympathy. A pure 100% I don't give a fuck attitude..

Look at you squirming about the disparate number of minorities in prison in Texas..

It's not a question of agreeing to disagree, when the lives of children and whole families are on the line.

When it's the "right" wing that put this country and the World in the position it's in.

Even the conce(R)vatives in Europe..

I've read article in the foreign press, aghast at the antics of the teabagge(R)s.

But not from you. You seem to stick up for their tenets.

You want love??

Give some.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Who’s trashy? Wait, never mind, I don’t want to know.

I’m not a right winger, although I do have some conservative views on some issues. I’m still a OWS supporter. Seems that’s not enough for you. Also, my statement about Detroit was in response to your incessant Texas bashing all afternoon. The truth is I’ve never been to Detroit, and I doubt you’ve ever been to Texas. But you seem quite comfortable in bashing Texas anyway.

And “Yes”, the right wingers have just as much a voice as you. The problem is you seem to think everyone is a right-winger. Bottom line, I’m not here to please you; and you’re out of line trolling everyone who you disagrees with. I’m dead serious when I say you need a breather to cool off. A couple of days away from the keyboard might help you calm down. Everyone is not the enemy, it’s just in your mind.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where did I bash Texas?

I asked you questions you couldn't adequately answer.

You pretty much dared me too.

My daughter will be in Texas in July. It's KO.

You picked at me for mentioning the RFIDs. I proved to you, it was all about the money, not the safety of the children.

That's says I'm picking on Texas??

I proved to you that they have the LARGEST prison population in the Nation and that's it's one of the most disproportionate in minority incarceration.

You shrugged and couldn't explain it.

You didn't even want to talk about the link to the profiteering of those prisons. I kind of went easy on you in that regard.

I also didn't mention that they KILL the largest percentage of their incarcerated population.

How is that about ME bashing Texas?

You had words and words alone. Not a single link.

I still have nothing against Texas. I just wish they'd quit bragging about how GREAT it is.

The dig at Detroit was completely uncalled for and a desperate attempt to prove....I don't know what.

Like I said.

You want love?

Give a little.

I'm quite capable of that too.

But don't expect me to think prisons aren't a form of torture.

They are.

Oh, and about those pot possession realities.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/aug/11/medical_marijuana_patient_faces

http://norml.org/laws/item/texas-penalties-2

Of course the ONLY way to fight this is through the libe(R)tarian angle.

It might save a little money, who cares about the ruined lives.

http://www.kens5.com/news/Bill-to-eliminate-jail-time-for-marijuana-offenses-197692031.html

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Sigh, we’re beating a dead horse here (so to speak). This “you said, I said” thing servers no propose. I hope your daughter enjoys here visit, who knows maybe she’ll meet one of my daughters and they can a glass of ice teas (too hot for coffee). I still think you need to take a breather from the keyboard. You’re way too intense. That’s not intended as a insult. Actually trying to be friendly.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This nation is in a pretty INTENSE situation.

Just understand that Texas is not the near paradise, you like to describe it as.

You should go back re-read what I linked for you again, in a better, more open, state of mind.

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

You’re right, Texas isn’t perfect, not by a long shot. But it’s a damn sight better living in bankrupt, rundown and dangerous city like Detroit.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

Please explain what a " gun nutter " is.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

All you have to do is go back and look, 'cause if you don't know by now, you're only going to be able to learn it on your own.

There were dozens of them around here after Sandy Hook, each nuttier than the last, so a simple search should help you find the threads.

Are you a puppet on a string too?

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

I was asking for your definition of a " gun nutter".

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

An uncompromising gun fetishist, that goes on and on about the constitution, while accepting the death of children as collateral damage.

Are you one of those?.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

If a person rightfully believes the Constitution establishes and protects a citizens right to own and bear arms, do you consider the person to be a " fetishist", or a " gun nutter"?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Do they accept the death of children as collateral damage?

That would answer the question.

There was no need for yours.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

Gun ownership is not unfettered. You must apply for it and be approved to be able to legally do so. Millions of people in the USA legally own guns. They do not spend their time murdering people.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OK, I'll grant you that. Gun ownership is so incredibly fettered that it's amazing all those flea market, gun and knife shows can stay in business.

So drop the fettered part and it comes down to......

And please. allow me to once again reiterate.

Would you as a gun owner, compromise to any degree, your perceived gun rights to save the life of a child?

[-] -3 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

If I wasn't so lazy and decimally challenged....it seems to me that 99.99??? of guns (and owners) are NOT involved in any crimes every year. 11,000 murders with gun (and I belive that figure includes POLICE shooting criminals, so even LOWER). 100 million gun owners...10 million with carry permits....SO..99.9999? guns ARE NOT INVOLVED in any crimes annually, Not bad, huh?

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Come on SHOES!!!!! I asked you yesterday for a better gun grabbing argument than your false choice of "a child's life" or my guns and you didn't answer me!!! You are the most obnoxious asshole on this forum, am surprised you didn't say SOMETHING that wasn't relevant or logical. You ignoring me?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

In your world?

The child always dies.

Why do you think I want to resurrect this pointless discussion again?

The parents in Newtown are correct, the NRA and it's adherents have NO compassion, and only the most lurid imagination.

[-] 1 points by CommunitySeeker (-3) 1 year ago

If I wasn't so lazy and decimally challenged....it seems to me that 99.99??? of guns (and owners) are NOT involved in any crimes every year. 11,000 murders with gun (and I belive that figure includes POLICE shooting criminals, so even LOWER). 100 million gun owners...10 million with carry permits....SO..99.9999? guns ARE NOT INVOLVED in any crimes annually, Not bad, huh?

That seems like a weak argument since many things which are illegal, like certain explosive devices, are also quite rarely the cause of death when looking at crime across the country.

The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. We don't need a device with such a purpose in society. I know some Americans use them to compensate for small penis size, but still, there are pumps and surgeries for that.

If 99.9% of gun owners are not involved in shooting incidents, then it means they aren't using their guns, so they don't need them. What's the point of wasting money on something you never use? Look up north, people don't have guns are there are less gun shootings and incidents per capita. You don't need guns.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

What NRA conspiracy theories? Firearms ( pistols and rifles) have been around for centuries. Children were taught how to use them. The NRA sponsors programs to teach and educate people of all ages about firearm use and safety.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The whole world, especially liberals, are out to grab their guns.

Their education program is apparently a complete failure.

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

So tell me shoes. Are guns the ONLY killers of children in this world? What a fucking stupid, false choice you are posing and you really think it's clever, I guess since you repeat it 100 x's below. Would you give up you car to save a child? Your electrical service in your home? Demand the destruction of all dogs in the world? You get my drift. There are thousands of ways children die every day. You need a better gun grabbing argument.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

You really have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Neither does the NRA.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

You assume I own a gun, I will allow that assumption for the sake of answering your question. The right ( it's not a perception, its very clear in the 2nd amendment) to owning a firearm can save the life of a child or anyone of any age. Houses get broken into, self defense ( by the use of a firearm) is the most effective way to stop the intruder(s).

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

You either understand the question and refuse to answer it, or you're not very bright.

Which is it?

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

My question to you is the correct one, your reply is a diversionary tactic.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Actually it was quite clear.

So I'll reiterate and ask YOU directly.

Do you believe that your "right" to unfettered gun ownership, trumps the death of children by those guns?

For bonus points, are you aware that OWS held candlelight vigils for Trayvon Martin?

Perhaps you attended one, at least in spirit?

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

If you've read their magazine then you must have read the page about various people who own guns that successfully defended themselves and others against criminals. You will now jump to another conclusion that I belong to the NRA, I don't but have read their magazine.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You missed all the paranoid, conspiracy theory bullshit then?

they don't say a word about children killing children.

they are mere collateral damage to the NRA.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

I will restate what I previously posted. You don't want to understand the 2nd Amendment. As for the NRA, why do you believe they have no understanding of the 2nd?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They accept the death of children as collateral damage.

That shows an incredible lack of understanding.

I've read their "news" magazine too. It's as off the wall, as anything on Alex Jones.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

I answered your question.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Only in your own mind and only though the filter of the NRA.

Are you aware that there is an Occupy the NRA affinity group?

You should join it and learn.

In your world........The child will die.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

anyone who puts gun rights ahead of human rights.

[-] 1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

The right to own and bear arms ( 2nd amendment) is part of the human rights established by the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

Correct answer. Thank you.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where's the links???

Why do you insult me??

Prove you accusations!!!

You should be VERY ashamed of yourself for this.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

The 2nd amendment is easy to read and understand. The current adminstration keeps chipping away at it ( and the 1st and 4th and 10th amendments too). Why do you say that the NRA's educational programs are a failure?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

trashy-can U R a miserable failure.

U misunderstand Occupy at a fundamental level. U always have - right from the very start.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Ask 'em to deal with it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mississippi-profit-prison-gets-sued/

And while you're at it, ask why they didn't post it.

Think Global, act Local.

Whattya got?

[-] 0 points by lester06 (28) 1 year ago

I can prove that OWS and the Tea Party are wings of the same rebellion. What would happen if jobs returned and Constitutional law reestablished? Both movements would disappear. It's a natural to unite where we agree.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

So, the Tea Party doesn't want to privatize Social Security?

[-] 0 points by lester06 (28) 1 year ago

Ah, a government shill replying on cue. Divide and conquer. Focus on the negatives. Keep true resistance small and atomized. Good strategy.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

So, the Tea Party supports public education?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If you mean it's time to unite and kill the GOP I'm with you otherwise I think there are plenty of feel good marches I would like to see OWS accomplish something and it cannot do that while the GOP hold power.I welcome all who wish to raise taxes on rich people, if you don't want to do that then i don't think you really support the 1% nor do you understand the issues.

[-] -1 points by polytop (-106) 1 year ago

Wow, you extrapolate in all directions like a conspiracy theorist. Lol!

It's time to unite over common ground and fight against politicians corrupted by the 1%. Every American, whether left or right wing, is pissed off that politicians are bought and corrupted by the 1%. That's why Occupy was started in the first place. To unite everyone and create the 99%.

if you don't want to do that then i don't think you really support the 1% nor do you understand the issues.

What's up with the bad assumption trying to masquerade as a accusation?

I'm willing to raise taxes. For sure! But, that won't solve the core issue. The real problem is politicians being corrupted by the 1%.

I would like to see OWS accomplish something and it cannot do that while the GOP hold power

Of course it can. If people get together like Occupy always wanted to fight those who corrupt our world with massive protests, then anything is possible. We have to stand tall together, like they did during the Arab Springs, and in Turkey.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

I pretty much agree ... in concept ...

as far as right wingers posting here ... I doubt many still do... however .. in the early days many Tea Party-ers (the original Tea Party-ers) did ... they wanted change also....

today... I honestly am finding this site... (albeit the true root site) ... a bit off mission IMO... We Are Supposed to represent the 99%.... no ?

and it often seems we are not.... (while I most often am progressive) I want to, and need to to hear & LISTEN to the other voices ... What are they really wanting ?

this was also this way 3-4 months after start.... most of the usual posters here ... (while I very much appreciate what they post) ... stopped LISTENING to the newcomers ....

I then shifted most of my attention to the NYCGA site... where more were attentive imo... and actually trying to develop solutions as opposed to simple complaining ....

anyway... this might get me slammed here... but just being honest....

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

ignoring new comers may result from repeating worn arguments

that said

new comers need to be encouraged to keep members fresh

[Removed]