Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: #OccupyWallStreet – Phase 2 “A Suggestion”

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 20, 2012, 8:39 a.m. EST by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The message is simple. Simplify you objectives. On the surface, of course there is nothing wrong with demonstrating. It is your constitutionally protected right to do so. There are a few problems with settling on this as the only line of attack.

One response I’ve had in the past few days is that to move Occupy towards a more political agenda is a waste of time because the game is ‘rigged’. I must say without an ounce of doubt that because the prevailing mindset is that you cannot affect the political establishment using the 99% collective mindset then this movement will amount to nothing if not some minimal semblance of victory 30 years or so down the road.

In response to my suggesting #OWS take the movement down the political path using the road-map laid before them by the Tea Party, I was told, “You don’t get it. Do you remember civil rights(and so on and so on)…, that didn’t happen in just one year.” Actually I do get it. I get it more than more than one would imagine but there isn’t a need to go into why here.

What is important is that we use our minds to come to a very obvious conclusion. While demonstrations and civil obedience are effective tools over the long haul, they do not produce the desired result in a timely manner. Certainly not without considerable personal violence suffered by those demonstrating.

You can push against the establishment in this way, but the system is set up to push back. To suppress the will of the people. To bust up your protests. To resist the changes that will affect the general population positively. If we cannot wrap our minds around simple equations and make these conclusions faster, we are inevitably dragging out the length of time this will take. Change your thinking.

So it has been a year since #Occupy took shape. I have viewed the most horrible footage on the NYPD harassing and assaulting protesters as if the NYPD were common criminals and thugs. This is very interesting. Why? Because not a single arrest was made in connection with any clear evidence, even video evidence of assaults by law enforcement on citizens, journalists, and in the most severe case an NYPD white-shirt nearly taking a woman’s head clean off her shoulders with a vicious punch caught on camera.

All this ruckus. I get it, #OWS will push on. #OWS will not be intimidated. #OWS will continue to demonstrate according to your constitutionally protected right to do so. But to what end? Have you really considered the substance of this question. For all the demonstrating, what has been accomplished? Think about it before you answer quickly.

I will try my best to answer for you without intentionally offending many who are invested in this on the ground level. All this demonstrating has accomplished – NOTHING. The sooner you can admit that, the sooner you can begin establishing a viable alternative action that is cost-effective in terms of time, effort, human resources. Again, this does not diminish the value of traditional demonstrations. However, after reviewing past and recent history, we find effective alternatives to the notion that demonstrating is all you can do. Adapt and move on.

If we by now have moved past the idea of using civil disobedience as a solitary method of bringing change to this country, we can discuss advancing the movement to an arena where police cannot abuse and protests cannot be suppressed. Where traditional and unconventional ways to suppress political dissent have no value or opportunity to disrupt the effort and resolve of #OWS.

These police and the powers behind them will never allow a disruption of the Wall Street Stock Exchange. NEVER. Feeding into this illusion is a proven distraction and evidence has already been presented that this is a flawed ambition. The end result will only be violence against demonstrators and arrests. Again, more power to you if you are willing, but the end results do not justify the cost. Especially if after a year, the main initial objective to actually Occupy Wall Street itself has never materialized. Attack the root.

I don’t have all the answers, but I have a serious suggestion. We need to evaluate structure of the powers working against our country and the 99%. At the top of the heap is Wall Street(Corporatism). Then Congress. Then we move onto the well knows words of wisdom, “All politics is local.” With this we have a basis to formulate an effective alternative action and we know what institutions to focus our efforts against. We can begin to formulate plans of action that will produce acceptable results less the violence and arrests.

Last year was the perfect time for this movement to take shape. I will admit we have lost a big opportunity here on this proposed front. It is never too late however and as one opportunity is missed another always presents itself. But this new opportunity comes with a hidden silver lining. If we had taken this step a year ago following the initial protests, we would have had less than a year to prepare to shake up the political stage. But since this years elections are right around the corner, we now have 2 years to really maximize the potential of any new efforts on this proposed front.

Attacking the local and state primaries two years out how the tea party did to send shock-waves through the Republican Party can, and is proven to work. We have to simply formulate plans that will allow the 99% to place candidates in political offices that will work for the 99%.

It only takes one. We should endeavor to crawl before we walk. It only takes one. One person, working with another, and on down the line until #OWS gets one candidate in any local or state political office. We don’t need to immediately have an #Occupy President. We don’t need a #Occupy super-majority in congress.Such ambitions are admirable, but unrealistic at this stage of the game.

We need to start at the root, uproot it at the base, and plant the seeds for our future. We can water those seeds and in the next few years we can watch those efforts produce a harvest of results. Look to 2-4 years down the road. Rather than the endless time it will take for any politician to notice or change anything based simply on protests.

The Mayor of NYC appoints the Chief of the NYPD. If 99% of this country is with us in this movement as we claim we can get Bloomberg out of office and find a Police chief that respects the constitutional right to assemble. A chief that won’t allow his NYPD subordinates to place agent provocateurs among the peaceful protesters in order to break up our demonstrations, or intimidate and assault our citizens and journalists.

You have local politicians, council men and women supporting you, standing side by side with you, being assaulted and arrested with you. Shift your thinking to progress they cannot break up. Move these council men and women up the political ladder in NYC and place them in positions of authority to stop the brutality of abuses being committed against you. Then your demonstrations will have much more effective results when the police and the mayor aren’t doing everything in their power to suppress you and discredit your cause.

This potential for a shift of this magnitude in attitude and effort is exponentially underrated. #OWS can begin unseating the true power behind the politicians who grant corporations and wall street the power to destroy this country and our populace. No method will achieve a desired result overnight. The system is not set up in this way. But, some methods are clearly proven to work in a timely manner when compared to others. By writing this post I only wish to inspire you all to optimize your efforts and in no way wish to diminish what has already been done on the ground at #OWS or what is still continuing.

Our thinking and methods must change, and in this respect they will never be able to suppress, arrest, or assault you. Having a defeated mindset unwilling to challenge what is before you is unacceptable. I don’t want to hear another #OWS supporter throwing the idea of impossibility in the face of the sacrifices being made on the ground. We owe this to those who have been jailed and assaulted to make something of material substance happen out of all this. No more standing by idly, mentally self-defeated while we send more protesters into the fray to place their bodies on the line for dismal results.

Adapt and move on.

You can find related articles To Occupy Wall Street my blog http://madrantz.net/BlogRantz/?cat=16

Thanks for reading. I'd love to hear your feedback and ideas on advancing the movement on this front.

I can be reached on https://twitter.com/wwwMadRantzNet

78 Comments

78 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

I've received a ton of positive feedback from people in #OWS who think that establishing a political agenda can and will enhance #OWS ability to achieve it's goals.

If you also agree I would like to here some creative approaches that can be implemented to kick start such a move.

I can be reached on twitter https://twitter.com/wwwMadRantzNet or on my website at http://madrantz.net/BlogRantz

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

[-] 0 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

It would be nice to see people behind the so-called leadership of OWS get serious about doing things they set out to do. At this rate, any real evidence of a desire to achieve these goals are absent. While it is true many of OWS wish to protest until they come under adversity and are ultimately arrested, I do not see any real effort on their part to make anything happen. What is up with that?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Occupy's main thrust still needs to be education. Informing the great mass of people who still believe the great American fairy tail, that we are in fact being deprived of our economic wealth, political voice, and fundamental constitutional rights.

We don't need an Occupy candidate. We need a candidate who will occupy the moral ground and stand against these injustices.

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

"We don't need an Occupy candidate. We need a candidate who will occupy the moral ground and stand against these injustices."

Why wait on a candidate when you can place one in power who actually will support OWS and fight the injustices. OWS has to be more pro-active in this respect if there is to be a reasonable expectation of this kind of person moving into politics.

[-] 2 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

I'm firmly believing that one of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to find one of the politicians throwing themselves into the fray with #OWS in NYC.

NYC is the birth of the movement and protests would have the best impact if they could be carried out without being trampled by the NYPD.

Shooing a councilman, particularly one who has been harassed, assaulted, and arrested by the NYPD to run as mayor of NYC and trying to get #OWS behind the idea would certainly help OWS efforts to assemble peacefully to demonstrate against inequality perhaps one day on Wall Street Itself.

I was thinking I read somewhere that the original intent of the protest was to actually occupy wall street. Hopefully this ambition has not been lost as the City and NYPD resisted these efforts.

Beginning something like this in NYC would have a larger impact on the mindset that this cannot be accomplished in a broader sense across the country where many Occupy protests are home to.

One very discouraging thing is the defeatist mentality plaguing those in a position to get this ball rolling. OWS is either the 99% or not. And in the case of politics, you don't need 99% you only usually need about 55-60%.

If this can't be cannot be a realistic goal of Occupy, I have to wonder what is the real point of any of this at all.

Many naysayers actually dream of changing law and policy, but have no real ambition to pursue the real means to change them. By taking over politics, with a consensus of ideas proposed by this perceived 99% collective that allegedly exists.

If anything is to ever change, you have to change your methods or all you will do is end up protesting what will never change absent OWS's initiative to change it for themselves. The idea that some candidate and student of traditional politics will suddenly sympathize with OWS enough to change the mindset in NYC, and NYPD is absolutely unrealistic.

A more proactive approach along these lines will certainly not do any more harm to OWS ability to achieve the goals they set out to achieve. For those who think that because OWS managed to get this inequality debate to the center stage is enough is misleading themselves. Simply watching the media, and a stalled congress talking about this isn't going to get anything done. This is a reality. The sooner we can face it, the sooner something can be done to change it.

[-] 2 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

It is very reasonable and likely I don't want to understand a shadow's or hollow troll's narrow view of what Occupy is or is not.

My perception is my prerogative. My outlook is my own ambition. An ambition to actually see something happen positively for OWS rather than the rash of protests followed by arrests that yield little to no result as far as accomplishing the actual objectives of OWS are concerned.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

OWS doesn't endorse candidates. Fine. They have stilled dominated the national political discussion.

One of the 2 parties in power is pushing the policies we need to help the 99%. They probably aren't going far enough.

Our continued efforts on the ground protesting outside the system can push the dialogue and the economic agenda even more.

I also support an inside game of forcing reform utilizing any pol who will listen. Focus on the economic agenda.

We must pull the country back from the right ward drift we've been on for 30 years.

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

I agree with you totally. On every account you made. But don't mistake my criticism and suggestion for disdain.

OWS doesn't support any candidate. I know. But does that mean it cannot? Does that mean it shouldn't? I'm talking about NYC, not big politics yet. Why not kick Bloomberg and get your protests supported by the next Mayoral candidate? Why not use a politician on the ground that OWS knows is genuine and isn't just talking the talk but walking it as well?

This only makes great sense. The continued efforts on the ground will produce result, I agree. But it will happen too slowly. It will cost many people to be arrested, and others to suffer serious personal injury. This kind of action can only enhance the effectiveness of OWS' continuing efforts on the ground.

I also ask you if you realize that all these things have to be done on the political level. How can any of this be accomplished if OWS does not galvanize it's participants at the polls?

What politician in a place to help change anything on the economic level is currently leveraged to do so? None.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Many politicians support the stimulus ideas, the job creation ideas, the taxing of the wealthy. My congressional rep is a big OWS supporter.

OWS has shunned any pol who visited their occupations but that hasn't stopped pols from embracing the language, concepts, & incorporating it into policy.

This has occured in only 1 year. We must continue the street pressure and we will see the pols move closer to our positions.

I'm not against running a candidate, or supporting a candidate who supports our agenda. I think that has happened in a limited way and will pick up.

The radical street protesters will continue screaming against it but that is not relevant.

They will learn to coexist or they will be ignored. We need each other. We WILL feed off each other.

We ARE the 99%

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

True indeed. With that in mind it shouldn't be too hard to set out to do. I'd like to see things move along a bit faster. You know, I don't wanna be 60 by the time it is said.. "We did it!" Politics will have to have a big role in accomplishing all the change that is desired.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I wish things would go faster as well. I think it will take years, & I'm sure it will not be fast enough for me.

We shall see.

[-] -3 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

You really don't understand OWS at all.

[-] -3 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

Richard, why the character name change? Why not use richardkentgates like before, or Archimedes which you were using last week. Did you get banned? I think you should change your IP if you're going to change users.

By the way, I like the Naples touch. Nice!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're lucky. When I suggested that #OWS take the movement down the political path using the road-map laid before them by the Tea Party, I was branded a Tea Partier. They got so distracted with a tea bagger witch hunt and conspiracy theories about the Koch brothers running the Tea Party that they totally failed to grasp what I was suggesting.

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

No junkie, you misunderstood, and dragged the conversation off in other directions.

I merely think OWS needs the millions and millions of dollars like the teabagge(R)s received from the Kocks and it's various front groups and astro turf campaigns. .

Now, when you can come up with that, you will have a valid argument, but until then? meh.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

OWS pissed away hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations that could have been the start of a lot more. Nobody is donating any more because they saw where it went the first time. Bail, metro passes, and "herbs".

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

Pissed?? Such inflammatory language from someone so reasonable.

But, whatever. It's still no match for 10s of millions, or even more when you consider the other "campaigns" they are involved in.

There's just no comparison, and you yourself admit that there is no party for them to glom onto as the teabagge(R)s did.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obama raised HUNDREDS of millions in 2008 mostly in small donations from individuals. You don't think that Occupy could ever win that kind of support from the 99%?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What's this got to do with Obama? Partisanship?

Yes of course.

You avoided dealing with anything I stated, once again it's deflect to the "left".

C'mon junkie man is this crap all you have?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Apparently the word "Obama" in my last comment distracted you from how I was pointing out that tens of millions is not out of reach for a group with grassroots backing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

No doofus, you have now abandoned the teabagge(R)s and are comparing and contrasting OWS to Obama.

As if the teabagge(R)s weren't a stretch in the first place.

Maybe you need a break?

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Shooz your inability to communicate with people who disagree with you is troublesome. You don't have to take a conversation to the lowest common denominator, names like teabagers and other names just make you look like you have no patience or intelligence. You can state a point calmly and logically an if they get nasty you stay cordial and positive then they look crazy and bitter. Because the problem with acting like some who is being an ass is it gets hard to remember who the ass originally was.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've actually been forced to start using the term "tea bagger" because people like shooz are so intent on pigeonholing me as a Tea Party supporter. It doesn't really seem to work anyway.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Some people are ruled by their emotions an it limits their ability for rational thought. All you can do is try your best to explain your position and move on!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What the hell are you even talking about?

That was a lot of words to type without really saying anything a all.

Is this your idea of the concept of cordial?

Good to know, I'll see you in kind at a later date, I'm sure.

[-] 0 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

Report Tech-Junkie because he is unable to have any conversation without playing the role of troll. On this and several other threads. If you don't want to report him, please refrain from pissing yourself off trying to have a normal discussion with it.

When I saw 12 comments I was hoping it would be more than 3 or 4 people only lol. Not this flamer TechJunkie flaming any and everything he comes in contact.

Seriously man you stifle productive verbal exchange. It shouldn't have to be tolerated at the level you carry on.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your definitions of the words "troll" and "flame" are interesting. I'm offering constructive criticism. That's not "trolling". But a lot of people here are incapable of handling the idea of having a conversation with somebody who doesn't agree with them on everything. Like this is some kind of in-club for liberals or something, as opposed to a movement that's theoretically about the entire 99% and not just half of it.

[-] 0 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

I won't feed the troll any longer. Dignifying it with a response has proven to be counter-productive and downright wasteful. I detest wastefulness on every conceivable level.

Its over, because I said so. done here...

[-] 0 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

Richard, that is a smart move. Feeding trolls is never a good thing.

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

I guess my skin got tough. I've been here a while and this is nothing new.

[-] 0 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

I think the moderators need to take more responsibility on their boards. I have my own site and know how tasking it can be to repeatedly ip ban though. They have my sympathy, but a little effort goes a long way.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If the administrators or moderators of this site were to ban me then I would leave. I've been posting under the same username for the last year and I don't use any sock puppets or bots or any of that other nonsense that abounds here.

But the mere suggestion that a person offering constructive criticism and pushing for unity should be banned is just kind of shocking. I really think that you should be embarrassed for even suggesting that. You seem to have lost sight of the Occupy ideals of inclusiveness and open-mindedness.

[-] -1 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

I used bots, sock puppets, and all other kinds of tricks to attack conspiracy theorists and pro-Obama supporters. However, I agree with you. I have read your posts in the last year and, although I don't always agree with your opinions, you are always polite and you use well founded arguments to make your points. Many here use logical fallacies almost exclusively. To see a poster like yourself use proper rhetoric is really nice. I truly don't understand why some people would want you banned, especially a user like Anomilus (richardkentgates) who claims to be brand new.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's my belief that only admin can do that.

So feel even worse for the beleaguered mods. All the sock puppets would make it like playing wack 'a' mole.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

Richard, you really should use a proper proxy to modify your IP. What happened to Archimedes? Why not use richardkentgates anymore? Were both those characters banned?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

I'm sorry was it not clear? I thought so but if not tell what part you had trouble with an ill make a more concerted effort to explain

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You really are prone to getting distracted by bright, shiny objects. I was trying to talk about Occupy's potential. But you're determined to demonstrate one of Occupy's biggest weaknesses that will prevent it from ever reaching that potential. You're so determined to get into a fight with an imaginary tea bagger that you're not paying any attention to the conversation at hand.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Oh junkie....insults?

You did start this whole thing off by "comparing and contrasting" OWS to the teabagge(R)s.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm still struggling to understand how the idea of comparing and contrasting OWS and the Tea Party is so offensive to you. This Anomilus guy is so offended that he wants me banned from the site. Censorship of constructive criticism is not an OWS ideal, is it?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yes, I can see that you have trouble understanding a lot of things.

Perhaps your education is too specialized?

Here's a thread to help you with understanding the trouble with teabagge(R)s.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/teabaggers-embarrass-america-again/

Take your time and read it through.

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I didn't ask you what your problem with the Tea Party is. I want to know why the concept of comparing and contrasting OWS and the Tea Party is so offensive to you?

Because you assume that anybody who would do that has to be affiliated with either one or the other, and so you assume that by merely mentioning the words "Tea Party" that I must be one of them?

One possible hypothesis is that you fear that comparing the two will make OWS look bad? I'm trying to come up with any hypothesis to explain this odd phenomenon that assumes reading comprehension abilities on your part, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You truly must be an idiot if you think the Koch party would be acceptable to anyone here.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (2774) from Miami Beach, FL 1 minute ago

You actually just told me that I should have expected people here to be distracted by the words "Tea Party" and to respond with superficial knee-jerk partisan attacks without event attempting to comprehend anything else about what I said.

That's pretty damning criticism of this site. You must be a Tea Party supporter or something for calling people here idiots like that. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you under the impression that anything that I've said has been about the Tea Party being accepted here? I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension skills.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And you have Shit For Brains if you think that OWS/Occupy has anything in common with the Koch/TP. You are not funny or silly - you are pathetic.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (2774) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

Are you trying to write comedy or did that just happen inadvertently? You don't see the hilarious irony in your proving my point by responding like that?

The issue that I'm trying to talk about is the common ground that we can all agree on. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And just how dense are you to continue to bring-up the TP/Koch party?


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2774) from Miami Beach, FL 3 minutes ago

What I actually keep explicitly saying to you is that I am NOT pushing the Tea Party, but every time I type the words "Tea Party", you get distracted and you don't comprehend the rest of the sentence. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you trying to write comedy or did that just happen inadvertently? You don't see the hilarious irony in your proving my point by responding like that?

The issue that I'm trying to talk about is the common ground that we can all agree on.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You say you have been pushing the tea party for a year and you can not understand why you are called a troll - Ummm - I think it is you with the comprehension issues.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (2774) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

Are you under the impression that anything that I've said has been about the Tea Party being accepted here? I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension skills. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What I actually keep explicitly saying to you is that I am NOT pushing the Tea Party, but every time I type the words "Tea Party", you get distracted and you don't comprehend the rest of the sentence.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your common ground post was a failure before you posted it - OWS has Nothing in common with the Koch party - I mean TP. And you did as I said - instead of pushing issues - you pushed differences - and in a stupid manner. Your post was set-up to be a divisive distraction from the start.

I can't access your other post - so I figure it must have been removed.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

So you're one of the people who got distracted by the words "Tea Party" at the top of that page and didn't actually read anything beyond that. You immediately shift away from talking about consensus to bring up the party-line conspiracy theory about the Koch brothers that I don't care about at all since I'm not a Tea Party supporter and since that's not what I was trying to talk about. It's interesting that you just criticized me for "bringing up differences rather then ignoring differences and pushing issues of benefit to all", but you responded to a post about ignoring differences and pushing issues of benefit to all by focusing on differences.

Try this one instead. It has fewer bright, shiny objects to distract you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Perhaps your problem is in bringing up differences rather then ignoring differences and pushing issues of benefit to all. By bringing up the differences you invite that to become the issue.

Plus making defeatist statements does not help your image either.

So if you are for real ( a supporter of OWS Occupy and the People ) - perhaps you need to push issues without the mention of left or right. Because as you well know this is a progressive ( Left leaning ) site.


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2768) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

I've been here circulating those ideas here for a year. Lately it's gotten me pigeonholed as a Tea Partier. Because a centrist isn't anybody's ideological enemy except to an extremist.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/at-the-core-of-our-government-is-a-corruption/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You seem to be missing something. I've been trying as hard as possible to ignore differences and push issues that are of benefit to all. Please try reading either one of those links that I cited. Why is this a "left-leaning site" if this is supposedly a movement that represents the entire 99% and not just the left-leaning half of the 99%?

Telling you that you can't get the money out of politics unilaterally is not defeatism because I'm not telling you that you can't get the money out of politics. I'm telling you that you can't do it unilaterally. This is an objective that can only be accomplished by rising above parochial partisan squabbling.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You most certainly won't by not trying.

How do you expect to get people on board and working together to accomplish good things if you do not support them ( issues campaigns actions ) and circulate them for the public awareness?


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2768) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

Passing a Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress. You can't accomplish that unilaterally. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've been here circulating those ideas here for a year. Lately it's gotten me pigeonholed as a Tea Partier. Because a centrist isn't anybody's ideological enemy except to an extremist.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/at-the-core-of-our-government-is-a-corruption/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'M not gonna pass the amendment. The congress will when the tea party gets on board to support what 80% of the people support. And don't forget the state legislatures too.

Right.?

So can you get the tea party on board.?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It's sad that the only vision of success that you can possibly imagine is if other people learn to agree with you.

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

You mean like your knee jerk every time someone says something negative about a rather negative faction of the (R)epelican't party?

A party that's already become VERY negative.

Yes, I see your level of understanding on this is quite low.

That's why I provided you with an accurate thread to ignore.

PS, you actually have to read it to have ANY comprehension whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Can you show me a single post where I have defended any Republican policy over the entire year that I've been posting here?

Opposing partisanship is not the same thing as rooting for the other side.

[-] -1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

Why feed the troll any longer? Dignifying it with a response has proven to be counter-productive and downright wasteful.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That post is not accessible. If you wanted to make a post that was less likely to be refused outright - you would have made one about progressives and conservatives. You are a fool if you think your shiny objects argument holds water - your post is what it is - offensive to say the least.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (2768) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

So you're one of the people who got distracted by the words "Tea Party" at the top of that page and didn't actually read anything beyond that. You immediately shift away from talking about consensus to bring up the party-line conspiracy theory about the Koch brothers that I don't care about at all since I'm not a Tea Party supporter and since that's not what I was trying to talk about. It's interesting that you just criticized me for "bringing up differences rather then ignoring differences and pushing issues of benefit to all", but you responded to a post about ignoring differences and pushing issues of benefit to all by focusing on differences.

Try this one instead. It has fewer bright, shiny objects to distract you. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You actually just told me that I should have expected people here to be distracted by the words "Tea Party" and to respond with superficial knee-jerk partisan attacks without event attempting to comprehend anything else about what I said.

That's pretty damning criticism of this site. You must be a Tea Party supporter or something for calling people here idiots like that.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

All people/individuals need do is support and circulate initiatives that come along - that is if they don't get one of their own started - initiatives like the state by state "Move to Amend" campaign.


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2794) from Miami Beach, FL 6 minutes ago

I've posted a large volume of rational explanations for why it will not be possible to get the money out of politics unilaterally. A petition is not going to do it. A constitutional amendment is the only way. There are people from both sides of the ideological spectrum interested in this issue because neither side can advance their own agenda under the current system. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Passing a Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress. You can't accomplish that unilaterally.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The Amendment process is moving right along, despite your pessimism. The amend process ain't affected by my partisanship or your pessimism. They might benefit if the very successful tea party would come on board.

But the very successful tea party is doing nothing and not pushing the Amendment? Is there someone you can call? Perhaps their contribution will improve your pessimistic outlook.

In the meantime, what about the refocus?

Stimulus for infrastructure/green tech jobs creation. tax the wealthy, cut tax/debt for middle/working class, penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing. cut defense spending, and any waste/fraud/abuse.

No good?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Stop criticizing me. The movement to get money out of politics is moving right along regardless of my partisanship.

Is there anyone on the right pushing this? I have seen polls showing 80% of the people support money out of politics. So do you know of any tea party effort. You are well versed with the tea parties success.

Do they have a petition? Are they pushing pols to support this critical issue.? Is this just a left wing effort. Would that be meaningful?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've posted a large volume of rational explanations for why it will not be possible to get the money out of politics unilaterally. A petition is not going to do it. A constitutional amendment is the only way. There are people from both sides of the ideological spectrum interested in this issue because neither side can advance their own agenda under the current system.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Consensus is about finding agreement! That is why I ask if you agree or disagree.

You don't have to answer, As you have not. I read you comment. Do you have a suggestion in there.? Maybe the money out of politics effort we already agreed on?

I agree!

If you have nothing else to suggest and refuse to discuss what I have proposed then I guess we're done.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The point that I keep trying to make is that you're never going to unilaterally get the money out of politics. You're never going to unilaterally accomplish any of the changes that you're talking about. So you're shooting yourself in the foot by clinging to partisanship. You're your own opponent because you're doing everything possible to ensure your own failure.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Enough already. I'm not interested in the tea party. The money outof politics issue is great common ground and the effort is well on it's way.

That is long term.

Meanwhile we must refocus on the original OWS message of fin re regulation, wealth equity.

tax the wealthy, cut defense spending, cut tax/debt for the middle/working class, penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing, & pass stimulus jobs bill for infrastructure/greentech etc.

That's the plan.

Agree or not?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You desperately want me to tell you that I either agree or disagree with regulation and other wedge issues. You say "Agree or not?" a lot because you're looking for a fight. Can't you understand the idea of looking for a consensus instead of looking for a fight?

I've been trying really hard to get you to consider this:

At the core of our government is a corruption. Not the corruption of criminals, violating the law by engaging in illegal bribery. There is some of that, but not much, and even if we ended all of that, we wouldn’t begin to solve the type of corruption that I’m speaking of. Instead, the corruption that I’m speaking of, and the corruption that debilitates this government, is legal corruption. It is the economy of influence that guides Washington to regulate or not to regulate as the funders of campaigns want and, more pressingly and more recently, as the barons of super PACs demand.

This corruption blocks both the Left and the Right. For different reasons, it blocks us both from getting the change that each seeks.

The Left wants climate change legislation. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. The Left wants real health care reform—with real competition for insurance companies and real competition in drug prices. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. And the Left says it wants a vibrant and modern broadband Internet infrastructure. But it will never get the competition it needs to inspire that building so long as the incumbents can spend less (through the regulatory system) to block competition than providing that service would cost.

The Right wants different things, but again, they are things it will never get so long as elections are funded as they are now funded. The Right wants a smaller government. But so long as a bigger government means more targets for fundraising (i.e., the regulated), the system is biased against what the Right wants. The Right wants simpler taxes—whether Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Rick Perry’s flat tax. But taxes—or, more precisely, the complexity of today’s taxes—are tools in the fundraiser’s toolbox. Got a tax benefit that’s set to expire? Expect a call from a congressman or his fundraiser, eager to enlist you in the fight to “preserve your tax freedom.” What congressman would simplify taxes when that only complicates his opportunity to raise campaign funds?

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/21/lessigs-one-way-forward.html

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 2 years ago

Exactly. OWS needs to get back to what it set out to do and focus on ways to improve and optimize the methods being used to realize their objectives.

This will only be done in the political arena. But to my knowledge, Occupy has no ambition or plan to place individuals in places of power to help bring these issues to the floor.

Occupy has not organized the correct political organization to leverage politicians to vote occupy's way. This is unfortunate, but the bright side is now is a good as time as ever to start.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The comparison is a useless excercize.

Discussing the issues/solutions that will benefit the 99% is a valuable use of our time. Discussing the tea party, or the differences beyween OWS and the tea party is not valuable.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Constructive criticism is always valuable, and being open-minded to new ideas is also. I never asked anybody to even consider any position of the Tea Party. I was simply pointing to a group that has advanced their own agenda through participation in our government, and contrasting that with Occupy's inability to do so. In the "One Way Forward" thread, I'm not asking anybody to adopt conservative positions, I'm asking both sides to recognize that there is common ground that we can agree on so that we can work together to make our country better, like many generations before us have done when they came together to form bi-partisan coalitions to pass constitutional amendments.

[+] -5 points by RothchildThe3rd (-47) 2 years ago

Dude, shooz operates in much the same way that VQkag2 does. They are both members of Partisan Powers. If you even mention anything against Obama and friends they will label you a republican or some other right-wing term. They understand full well that this is not in the spirit of the OWS concept of the 99%. They just don't care. They are here to push the democrats, not to aide the revolution OWS is trying to accomplish.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I can understand that. But what fascinates me is the black-or-white, us-versus-them mentality that pigeonholes anybody who doesn't blindly agree as an opponent. I spend my time here advocating centrism, and it used to be difficult for me to understand how a centrist could be anybody's ideological enemy.

But then I realized that an extremist views a centrist as an ideological enemy. Now it all kind of makes sense to me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sad that I recognize we must agree to succeed? Didn't YOU say we needed to have consensus?

And don't 80% of the people already agree? It is the pols who must really represent the peoples will.

So obviously we need to have agreement. You're against agreement?

We need the very successful tea party to reflect the 80% that support this.

Don't you agree?

Can you call someone over there.?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

80% of the people agree with your foaming-at-the-mouth partisanship? You and I both seek consensus but the difference is that the only consensus that you can imagine is if everybody else comes around to agreeing with you on divisive wedge issues. Whereas I'm looking for common ground.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You have lost all sense of reality.

"foam at the mouth partisanship"? When? Let's see the evidence. I thought we were talkin about an issue we agreed on. (money out of politics)

80% of the people agree with you and me on money out of politics not with the false accusation of foaming partisanship you make.

What divisive wedge issue are you talkin about? Our discussion is about your proposal regarding money out of politics.

Remember?

So, is there someone at your tea party that you can call to get on board with YOUR proposal of getting money out of politics?

With their great success I do not doubt they can deliver at least 62 of the 300 votes we need in the House.

[Removed]