Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Open Letter to All and Founders Families re Election Boycott and Gender Parity

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 12, 2012, 8:08 p.m. EST by occupiersboycottelection (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

NOW, US Occupy must learn from the Egyptian Election Boycott and follow that good example. Every Occupier, female and male should reach out to familycommunity, friends and neighbors, and over the Internet, and be able to say: Occupiers are recommending the Boycott of the Election, just as the Egyptians did, and achieve even better than 49%, and we know we can do it, given that 90 million Americans who have had no knowledge of the call to boycott are already saying spontaneously that they will not vote in this pseyudoelection because it is too corrupt. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/non-voters-obama-romney/57055184/1

But just not voting alone is not enough for a Revolution. There must be a plan for a new Constitution, just as there was in Egypt, and a TV Media boycott (via not watching, and buy nothing that is not a necessity) of the ad-money mad democracy-destroying Media (and if Google does not respond and Yahoo News do not cover both the gender declarations and minority/majority balance aspect of the pseudoelection, the Internet corporations as well) that are $elling it, and a general strike, as Occupy accomplished in Oakland. But all the work must include attention to the lack of representation for women, and other related oppressions occurring in the US, which will very likely be intensified many times over by this pseudoelection no matter which Presidential Candidate "wins". More details about Why and How to Boycott, and women as well as men (most of whom have written on the gender issues involved in this pseudoelection) whose links are calling for boycottt, is available at: https://boycotttheelection.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/boycott-the-election-to-save-the-earth/ https://boycotttheelection.wordpress.com

We urge that all Occupy General Assemblies discuss these ideas and suggested actions, and adopt them, and more, now. (Note: We have noticed that for weeks the above website comes up on the Google Search Engine when you Google the search term Boycott the Election to Save the Earth, but does not show up when you Google Boycott the Election, which is obviously part of the title, is repeated throughout the website, and it should come up. Is is possible that because it particularly targets women who are 66% of voters, and minorities, who are another about 25%, who the Dempublicans are particularly herding into the ballot booth to give this pseudoelecton the look of legitimacy, it is being held out of the url cue Google? We have an Open Letter to Google about this, and Google's Evil and clearly not net neutral decision to suddenly go into politics, and display banners on their Search Page with links to videos of Romney's and Obama's nomination, something they clearly did not do for Roseanne Barr and Jill Stein when they were nominated, and more https://googlesmissingwomenandmengoodorevil.wordpress.comThe US Corporate Media television reaches into the homes of 300 million people for many hours every day, and is the chief agent of $elling the P$eudoelection, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of US Corporate Patriarchy (until recently when Google also suddenly went into the business of selling p$eudoelections - see Open Letter to Google https://googlesmissingwomenandmengoodorevil.wordpress.com)

In all its marches and actions, OWS has never had any let alone a large scale action at a Corporate Media headquarters. We think it is time, necessary for September 17th and overdue. There are many media headquarters located in New York City, The Black Rock Building of CBS (aptly named for CBS's one (gender) eyed Cyclopic monster's black deeds regarding all issue of democracy and particularly the representation of women) http://openletterstochiefevilofficerss.wordpress.com/, and NBC Universal (we will soon have Open Letters for All Media CEOs0 are both excellent, appropriate and overdue targets for the March which carries banners that Say Boycott the Pseudoelection and Signs that Say 5050 NOW on September 17th. Many Media CEOs also serve on the Boards of the very Banks that Occupy has protested. It is time overdue to connect the dots, and focus on the Corporate Media, particularly television and radio, which is literally daily brainwashing the American people to permanently (as as long as it can last before it destroys the Planet) accept a Corporate Dictatorship via this Pseudoelection.

The Occupy Wall St website says it is based on the Arab Spring: "We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants." The Egyptian Revolution included an active boycott of the Presidential pseudoelection, and a Woman's Charter for representation. Why is US Occupy, in the country that puts the whole World at Stake, ignoring the model of, and not learning from both the mistakes and the successes of the Revolution of Tahrir Square?

In Egypt, a poor and backward country compared to the US and Canada, a country where many women still wear the Islamic veil (deprived of their ancient Goddess/God tradition) and are subject to marriage at age 14, 500,000 women and men signed petitions for the Egyptian Women's Charter demanding 40% women in office. US Media and even US Occupy ignored that. Like the women of Rwanda did, Egyptian women should have asked for 5050, what women all over the world really want and the minimum they deserve after Millennia of abuse and sanctions that kept them out of official decision-making. If they had had enough self esteem and insisted on 5050, change would have happened. We are now demanding this for them, for North American and for all women all around the world (We are copying this to International Occupies, most of which have far more women in office than the US, already.)

Partly because Corporate media suppressed News of the Egyptian Women's Charter which would have received support from so many in North America had they known about it, and partly because some of the so-called Revolutionaries were not grasping its importance, the Egyptian Arab Spring Revolution failed for the moment, and a pseudoelection was held and a male religious dominator was elected who is a puppet controlled by even more dominating military men.

But, in part because of the 49% of the people who boycotted the Egyptian pseudoelection travesty, the Tahrir Revolution started up again on August 24th, but will succeed this time only if North American Occupiers do the necessary soul-searching on gender hierarchy, and focus on this gender aspect of Revolution, telling the women of Egypt that by the action of Women of Occupy in America, they now have the right to 5050. They must listen to the words of women and men in Egypt who wanted gender representation and to include a woman President:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trudy-rubin/Egyptian-revolution-has-failed-women.html "Women are now being marginalized not just by the SCAF ( the transitional military council ruling Egypt) or by the Muslim Brotherhood, but by the patriarchal mindset of our society,” says Dalia Ziada"

http://blog.enterplanet360.com/2012/05/why-i-boycotted-the-egyptian-presidential-elections/ A man states his reasons for boycott, including the failure to have woman candidate Bothaina Kamel on the Presidential tickets.

But, as some level, US Occupy has not been listening to the full picture, which includes gender balance as a primary focus:

http://interoccupy.org/egypts-elections-under-military-rule-join-our-resistance-to-the-counter-revolution-by-comrades-from-cairo/ "the discourse of the political classes and the infrastructure of the elites, including both state and private media, continues to privilege discussions" But even this article from Occupy makes no mention of gender. Treating it like the Elephant in the Living Room that cannot be seen or discussed. US Occupy reveals the same "patriarchal

An election boycott will help both Occupy and the regressed US society gain the time it needs to get its house in order on gender hierarchy and other hierarchies that are associated with it, affecting representation, the core issue of a large democracy. To fail to do this now, will simply result in the destruction of society and Nature, both, and destroy the Earth. (even the 1% itself).

continued in upcoming post



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Why is this bullshit still here?

This is Paul Weyrich's wet dream.

We need more attentive mods.

[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

The mods agree with this. They are anarchists who are part of OWS. They are not pro-democrats like you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

So in your mind Weyrich would have been a supporter of OWS?

That's very odd.

[-] -2 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Probably not, but the idea of boycotting the elections is supported by OWS. Voting is legitimizing the system we are fighting against. This is an anarchic protest, not a pro-dem rally. In any event, you and your Partisan Powers should stop trying to control the forum by banning what you don't agree with. Send a message to the mods and let them decide. Stop being a censor.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Direct Democracy Now

From the link: What Is Direct Democracy?

Unlike the current “Representative Democracy” where elected representatives make decisions regardless of the wishes of their constituencies, in Direct Democracy individuals vote on critical issues and their decisions are carried out by their elected representatives… Whether they like it or not

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

excellent. How do we do it? Whats the plan?

Maybe we can find a small community/city where we can get approval to implement local level version using the internet perhaps.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

We do this just as we are. Supporting campaigns like Move to Amend. Petitions are voting - and you need enough signatures to make it happen - but the process is in place - it is a matter of getting the people involved - signed on.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Well you know I'm a signer. So. And I will be on the front lines as well. Let my body do the talkin as well as my signature.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

And using the process we have in place we get the issues addressed that get us moving to a better system of the people taking direct participation.

But as always 1st things 1st. We need to do it the hardway ( long process ) to get to a position where we can improve the system for the peoples participation. One issue at a time that each brings the government back to the people. These separate/individual issues need not be presented at separate times either - they can each be worked on and moved forward at the same time and resolved as each issue gets the required support to move forward in the process.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Well you know I'm with that as well.

[-] 0 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

And using the process we have in place we get the issues addressed that get us moving to a better system of the people taking direct participation.

Using the current system in place, Representative Democracy, does not move us closer to the opposite system which is Direct Democracy. It does the opposite by legitimizing Representative Democracy, just like writing letters to the President. Someone who cares about Direct Democracy DOES NOT vote for representatives and DOES NOT write letters to the President. He gets out in the street and starts working with his community to take things in their own hands, WITHOUT representatives.

One issue at a time that each brings the government back to the people.

FAIL. Direct Democracy is not about bringing the government back to the people. It's about dismantling the government because we don't need it. It's about getting ride of Representative Democracy and using our communities to build the better world. It's about we, the people, doing it for ourselves by ourselves.

OWS is not about reform. That's the job of political parties. OWS is about dismantling the system all together and starting anew. It's about revolution.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Revolution - another concept you have difficulty with:

Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

  1. Complete change from one constitution to another

  2. Modification of an existing constitution.[1]

Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.

[-] 0 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Sigh... You understand nothing of OWS.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

No that would be U.



[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Indeed, in direct democracy we DO NOT have representatives. Voting for Obama or someone else in the election is not in the spirit of direct democracy, it's in the spirit of legitimizing politicians do to what we should be doing ourselves. We do not need representatives.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Ummm your reading comprehension fails you yet - AGAIN.

Direct Democracy individuals vote on critical issues and their decisions are carried out by their elected representatives

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

Direct Democracy is an anarchist principle. This would be in direct opposition to our Constitution. Which was specifically designed to prevent a Direct Democracy. Because the Founders believed it was dangerous. I think you're really confused.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Not so little Buttercup. U R confused as to what is already available for the people to use to take direct action in their government as it exists today. Direct democracy and it's principles predate the emergence of anarchists.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

I didn't say anarchists invented Direct Democracy. But it is one of their core principles.

You don't get to make up your own definition of Direct Democracy. Actions like protesting, running for office, signing petitions, writing letters to Representatives and the President is not Direct Democracy. Those types of actions are compatible with our rights supplied to us in the Constitution. Direct Democracy is not compatible with the Constitution. You don't get to make up your own definition of Direct Democracy. Protesting and writing letters to the President is not Direct Democracy. You are the one that is confused as to the rights that are available to us. Direct Democracy is not one of them. lmao. You crack me up DK.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

You make me laugh. U have tunnel vision and wear blinders.

Tell me something - does a petition have any meaning? Does a petition have any binding force to call an issue up for review?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

A petition is a form of communication. A request to the government. That's it. So what's your point? lmao. You're not gonna try to tell me that a petition is Direct Democracy now are you?!! lol.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

A petition can force a recall of a politician - it can force a runoff election - is that not more than being a letter? Is that not direct democracy in action?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

No a petition is not a direct democracy measure. A petition is only a request. A petition requesting a vote for or against something. The Amendment that you're referring to (or any proposed Amendment) still requires the vote of the State Legislatures and Congress who have the power to vote however they want. Even in opposition to the petition. A petition in and of itself cannot make law. A referendum can. A petition and referendum are not the same thing. A petition still needs the vote/approval of a governing body. A referendum does not.

So no. A petition is not a direct democracy measure by any stretch of the definition. And you don't get to apply your imagination to a definition of a form of government.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

What you are talking about is limited direct democracy measures that are available at only some state and local levels. Referendums, initiatives and recalls. On a very very limited basis! Direct Democracy (proper) is a form of government! That is in direct opposition to our Constitution. Hopefully this finally clears it up for you.

There is currently no provisions for referendums at the Federal level. If that's what you are talking about it means changing the powers of Congress, possibly the Executive Branch as well. Which would mean changing our Constitution.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

The Move to Amend petition is another direct democracy action ( state by state ) - if enough people sign on - then the petition moves forward on repealing citizens united.

[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

It's remarkable that this DKAtoday wants to create a better world and claims to support OWS and after a year still does not understand what Direct Democracy is, the bread and butter of OWS. He still does not understand that it is in complete opposition to the Representative Democracy being used in US and many other countries, and still doesn't understand that playing partisan politics and pushing for a particular candidate like Obama legitimizes the Representative Democracy system which in turn downplays the importance of Direct Democracy and of OWS. It's like he just says these words and expressions in the wind without understanding what they mean.

Really, there's nothing more against Direct Democracy than writer letters to the President.


[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

I guess you still don't understand what "Direct" means in Direct Democracy. Hint, it means there is no middle man, there is no representative. The people make their own decisions, directly.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Lay that out - how does that work? I mean somewhere along the line you need to total up to find consensus right? How is that done? How is that forwarded into action?

Lay it out A thru Z.

Edumacate us marthasock.

[-] -2 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

There's no need for me to repeat what's already out there. If you want to educate yourself you will. You can read what's been tried before, and you can read what OWS has done with direct democracy and what it's preparing to do with it next.

A good place to start is Wikipedia. It has good information. You'll learn that Direct Democracy is in direct opposition to Representative Democracy by reading the first paragraph. I quote:

"Direct democracy (or pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives.[2] Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy."


OWS uses participatory direct democracy, not deliberative direct democracy.

It's your business if you educate yourself or not, but I would think it would be wise for you to learn about OWS and the principles it uses before professing to support them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

I understand OWS and the Occupy movements.

The question is - Do You?

The operation of OWS and Occupy movement meetings goes as follows.

From your wiki link :

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. However, participatory democracy tends to advocate more involved forms of citizen participation than traditional representative democracy.

Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. Since so much information must be gathered for the overall decision-making process to succeed, technology may provide important forces leading to the type of empowerment needed for participatory models, especially those technological tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the accretion of knowledge. Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied.[1] Other advocates have emphasised the importance of face to face meetings, warning that an overreliance on technology can be harmful.[2]

Some scholars argue for refocusing the term on community-based activity within the domain of civil society, based on the belief that a strong non-governmental public sphere is a precondition for the emergence of a strong liberal democracy.[3] These scholars tend to stress the value of separation between the realm of civil society and the formal political realm.[4] In 2011, considerable grassroots interest in participatory democracy was generated by the Occupy movement.

Structure The General Assembly meeting in Washington Square Park, New York City on October 8, 2011

The movement has been described as having an "overriding commitment" to Participatory democracy.[82] Much of the movement's democratic process occurs in "working groups," where any protestor is able to have their say. Important decisions are often made at General assemblies,[83] which can themselves be informed by the findings of multiple working groups. Decisions are made using the consensus model of direct democracy. This often features the use of hand signals to increase participation and operating with discussion facilitators rather than leaders - a system that can be traced in part to the Quaker movement several centuries ago, to participatory democracy in ancient Athens, and to the spokescouncils of the 1999 anti-globalization movement.[84][85][86] At the assemblies, working group proposals are made to meeting participants, who comment upon them using a process called a stack; a queue of speakers that anyone can join.

In New York, Occupy Wall Street uses what is called a progressive stack, in which people from marginalized groups are sometimes allowed to speak before people from dominant groups, with facilitators, or stack-keepers, urging speakers to "step forward, or step back" based on which group they belong to, meaning that women and minorities get to go to the front of the line, while white males must often wait for a turn to speak.[85][87] The progressive stack concept has been criticized by some outside of the movement as "forced equality" and "unfair."[88] The movement claims, in its own media [1], to be using or moving towards robust consensus decision-making methods, in which some of these compensatory airtime methods are less necessary. Each local Occupy movement however typically has a General Assembly [2] (and some have online expressions of it en sp that are generally conducted along the lines of the New York General Assembly, which is still largely considered to set the standard for how facilitators should conduct themselves.

Which explains the functioning of meetings in OWS and Occupy - but does not go to addressing politics.

So U martha(?) being a dedicated anarchist(?) and student of Direct Democracy(?) U should be able to rattle off how this all works as a political structure - I mean U do try to educate the public and all - so U must be able to rattle off how it all comes together and works - RIGHT?

So please take us all on a journey ( make your own Direct Democracy Post ) take us past the workings of a general Assembly meeting and show us how it all comes together and gets acted upon in the proper operation of Direct Democracy Politics.

[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

I understand OWS and the Occupy movements.

You really don't seem to understand at all. If you did, you would not write letters to the President and promote voting, both activities used to legitimize the Representative Democracy, you would instead prone Direct Democracy by arguing that we build communities and make our own decisions.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Afraid you can't defend your position? martha(?) ? You should have your post laying out the whole process up by now. Instead you are messing around throwing stones at me.

Makes you look pretty lame.

So U martha(?) being a dedicated anarchist(?) and student of Direct Democracy(?) U should be able to rattle off how this all works as a political structure - I mean U do try to educate the public and all - so U must be able to rattle off how it all comes together and works - RIGHT?

So please take us all on a journey ( make your own Direct Democracy Post ) take us past the workings of a general Assembly meeting and show us how it all comes together and gets acted upon in the proper operation of Direct Democracy Politics.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Again you repeat a trashy lie - martha(?)

I do not legitamise - I chastise - and I share that with the public for their consideration.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't see a word about it.


May be you can find something I missed?

I'm not censoring anyone, You've been trying to censor those you consider "partisan"......When in fact, we all are..........................

[-] -2 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Why don't you ask the moderators themselves. They don't speak their word on the site you mentioned. No, we are not all partisans. Those who truly believe in OWS believe the system is broken. We don't believe in political parties. We believe in a revolution. In taken the system down. Your pro-Obama stance is not common amongst true occupiers.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I have, and they feel the vote is more important in the States.

I don't see that reflected here.

The link I posted is official, and there's nothing there on a vote boycott.

You want to show me where I've expressed this overwhelming "pro Obama stance"?

Yes, as we are all political, we are all partisan.

It's just a fact of normal human behavior. So stop tying to play it as something it isn't. It's not a form of insult.

The harder you push such things, the harder their stance will become.

You do understand what Weyrichs position was meant to accomplish?

You do understand the people and forces that back his stance?

[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

OWS supporters and anarchists are not partisan. They believe the system is broken and want to replace it with something else. Do you not understand what anarchy is?

OWS is highly based on Direct Democracy which is the belief that we, the people, can make decisions for ourselves without the need for politicians. Voting is in complete opposition to that since it legitimizes the Representative Democracy US is currently using. OWS wants to demolish that by protesting, it does not want to legitimize it by voting.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Why do you have such a problem answering questions?

There was only 3 and you skipped them all., and that's just in this thread.

I will begin to answer your questions again, when you begin to answer mine.

Partisanship, is real and normal. Ignore it at your, and the movements peril.

[-] 0 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Learn what OWS is about. Hint: It's not about partisan politics at all, quite to the contrary.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You did it again.

Hint: If you are partisan to anarchy, you are still partisan.

You're just playing fine tooth semantics.

Now will you answer the questions, or are you planning on dragging this out and pretending you missed them?

[-] -2 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

No, anarchists are not partisans. They do not care about political parties in the Representative Democracy. The whole point of anarchy is to avoid political parties by using Direct Democracy so that communities can empower themselves and make their own decisions without representatives. Again, learn about OWS.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Anarchists are not partisan to anarchism? U R kidding - Right?

[-] -3 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

Anarchists don't form a political party. The word "partisan" comes from party, it's when you support a political party in representative democracy. Anarchists do not represent a party, they do not believe in parties. They believe in Direct Democracy. They believe in the people coming together and voting on issues themselves without representatives, without parties. You should already know this, it's been a year that you frequent this site.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

partisan - definition of partisan by the Free Online Dictionary

par·ti·san 1 (pär t -z n). n. 1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. 2. A member of an organized body of ...

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Answer my questions. I will bear no more of your BS and misdirections until you do.

I will not play this BS semantics game either.

You ARE as adamantly partisan as VQ and getting just as tiresome..


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Opt-out got us to where we are today with an insanely screwed up government. You go ahead and opt-out if you want. The People need to get involved and stay involved - if we ever want to see a sane government of the People working with and for the People.

[-] -1 points by occupiersboycottelection (3) 11 years ago

We are not talking about simply opting out, but holding a citizen's made Constitutional Convention in Spring of 2013, that would result in a real and representative election for 2013. This is a non-violent Revolution, what Occupy Wall St describe itself as. It means that the current government should be asked to resign, via non-violent non-cooperation.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

When I see an effort to encourage right wingers (whose policies are at the center of all our problems) to boycott theelection instead of justthe progressives here at OWS I might consider it.

Otherwise I KNOW that the 1% plutocrats want us to boycott, that is why they have perpetrated a massive effort at voter suppression.

I would ask you also, How can the tactics of the Egyptian arab spring work in the US when we do not have the same poverty and desperation, nor the same sexism, oppression of women?

We have too many comfortable people in the US. Not enough people who have given up or believe there is no other way.

This is our biggest problem growing our movement. No?

Too many people not willing to risk there jobs to strike?

I propose we replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives and protest all pols for the change that will benefit the 99%.

New Constitution.? Sure. What will be in it?

[-] 0 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

There are no pro 99% candidates, if there were we wouldn't need OWS we would simply do an election campaign for them. All politicians are corrupt because the system is corrupt. We don't need them. We certainly should not legitimize them with our vote.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

When I see a real effort to get the conservatives (whose policies are at the center of all our problems) to give up their rights to vote. instead of just the progressives here at OWS, I might consider.

Otherwise I KNOW that the 1% plutocrats would love for us to boycott, that is why they have perpetratied the massive vote suppression against us.


So you don't think Sen Bernie Sanders, and his progressive partners are for the 99%?

[-] 1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

I don't believe in the system. That's why I joined the anarchic protest OWS. Anarchy is about fighting against a system from the outside to bring it down.

If I believed in Sen Bernie Sanders or in Obama, I wouldn't be with anarchists, I would be joining their platforms and I would help them.

It's a question of integrity. I fight for what I believe, and I respect those who do. I have more respect for a republican fighting for what he believes, or an Obama supporter fighting for what he believes, than a pretend OWS supporter who does not embrace OWS but instead pushes for a particular candidate. For me, that's a lack of integrity.

The 1% plurocrats are both democrats and republicans.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

So you "have respect for a republican"? Surprise, Surprise.

And I have no respect for pretend anarchists who are really partisans attacking one party.

I have less respect for racists, homophobes, & and anti immigrants.

So touche.

Are one of the anarchists working on the new horizontal system?

[-] 0 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

OWS anarchists are racists, homophobes, and anti-immigrant now?

[-] -1 points by marthafromOTS (-78) 11 years ago

You ran into Partisan Powers, a small group of users here who know next to nothing about OWS and who spend their time supporting Obama: zendog, DKAtoday, shooz, shadz66, and VQkag2. Because you do not support Obama, they will call you a republican. DKAtoday is a moderator on this site and the leader of Partisan Powers. Every day, she writes letters to the president. zendog does not protest for OWS, but he does volunteer for the democrat party. Don't take what Partisan Powers say too seriously. They have co-opted this forum.

[-] -2 points by Dionysus (-16) from Owings Mills, MD 11 years ago

No DK opting out on voting did not get us here. Rather it was the belief that, that was all we had to do. Whatever got us here is 'water under the bridge' now. For anyone here that adheres to the silly notion that we can vote our way out of this...well they're wrong.

Still though, i know old habits are hard to break, so I will vote my conscience

This ENTRENCHED corrupt system will need a big push to be toppled. We, Occupy Wall Street are that PUSH, but we must remain outside the putrid political system.

All great stuggles have had radical elements in them. We, and the anarchists amongst us are the radicals here, and we must play the part.

If you do not want to be a radical, fair enough, YOU should join the dems, or moveon.org, and fight the struggle there.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Odin why don't you start your own forum with trashy and hchc? Then you can do all you want the way you want.

For the moment you are on this forum.

Guess what?

You are not the fount of all that is acceptable to do here.

[-] -1 points by Dionysus (-16) from Owings Mills, MD 11 years ago

Start my own forum with trashy, and hchc?

Nah....I find this forum really stimulating......you? ;-)

No, and neither should you be the "fount of all that is acceptable to do here" especially when you give far more latitude to those who agree with your views of partisanship, than to those posters who do not.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Shocking!!! - You mean to say that I let supporters of OWS and Occupy do their thing if they don't bother other supporters of OWS and Occupy? Boy what a bastard I am. I should attack everyone as if they were a troll like you - Hey?

[-] 0 points by Dionysus (-16) from Owings Mills, MD 11 years ago

"bother"??? This is a forum where people should have the chance to express their ideas. The 'reply' button' is there for a reason. If you don't want controversy in your life, or to hear other people's view points, you should do something else with your time.

This place should not be a launching pad for sending dems to office.

You have to learn to be a fair arbiter/moderator.

No one that I know, even the people that have been here for a long time do not think that you are fair at all

Of course, all these people like most of Occupy feel that partisanship should not be a part of this movement.....but this is very unlike what you believe, and as we all know....you hold the 'magic boot button'

Everyone gets a 'label' that doesnt agree with partisanship. Let's see: there's the old stand-by 'troll'; then there's 'problem causer,' 'trouble-maker; a John Bircher; a repulicon; a repelican, and my favorite an 'anti dem partisan shill troll.' lol


[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

I don't get it, does this mean you are for or against clitorisectomy? With the increase in both Muslim and West African immigrants, this will undoubtedly become one of the foremost social questions of our time period, second only to the castration of their male slaves.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

dino do you think the obama luvn crazies are going to allow anything bad to be said about their king? Theses are the same ones who preach about speaking freely unless they dont agree with it......if you back this kind of shit dont be supprised when it turns on you.