Forum Post: Stay away from Partisanship or you will kill OWS
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 25, 2011, 11:43 a.m. EST by Indepat
(924)
from Minneola, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I can't believe what I'm seeing. I swear, you are all trying to kill this thing. OWS needs to be nonpartisan, needs to avoid anything that can be labeled as Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative like the damn plague. First off, both parties are to blame, they are essentially the same. This also serves to divide the 99% since 1/2 of the 99% is already divided along these lines. And thirdly, it opens the door for one party to take this over as there own, like Republicans sis with the Tea Party, and for the other side to rally their base against this movement.
If you want this to even have a chance of succeeding, then stay away from politics all together. But if you want to kill it, then by all means, push for a particular view, candidate and party.
I agree that OWS ought not to be partisan: we should support good solutions to the problems we face regardless of who proposes them.
But we ought to support good solutions to the problems we face, and that in itself means being involved in politics. Staying away from politics altogether means staying at home and keeping your ideas to yourself. OWS is a political movement and we will make our demands heard.
I realized after viewing all comments from the OWS when it first started out that regardless of party it is important to step outside the box, your usual political party ideology and view the thoughts of OWS. Everyone knows that there is something critical to be said about all political parties. At the same time I look at how the Tea Party sent members to the House and made a big difference. I don't agree with all of their ideals but the point is working with what you have, can have it's benefits. We can't just say, "don't vote". That is our voice. Let's get the messages we want transferred to politicians running for office so that our message goes to Congress, just as the Tea Parties did?
I agree with SisterRay's post.
Yes, but we even have to be careful of the solutions that we come up with, because even those can end up sounding conservative, liberal etc... That's why we have to stick tot he single issue all of us can agree on, that Washington has been purchased and we need to take it back.
Trying to get the money out of Washington, and the influence that it buys, is not political at all. The solution is to keep this this rolling, and to demand change. To march on Washington and like the civil rights movement, stay in it for the long hall. This can be done without politics. In fact, it has to.
Marching on Washington is politics, and politics of a certain kind. Do you think that you can pressure or even intimidate the Democrats and Republicans into granting concessions? Some people do, but I would oppose this assumption as an adaption to the legitimacy of these two Wall Street parties and, in fact, sowing the illusion that they would be able to "get money out of politics", etc even if they wanted to. The millionaires club of Congress and the Wall Street presidency cannot be persuaded. That is a political ABC.
Okay, let me rephrase, not falling under liberal or Conservative.
We should all be able to agree that there ought to be stronger regulation of lobbying and campaign financing. But OWS's goals do not end there. The elimination of the corrupting influence of money from our political system is only the first step towards accomplishing our larger goal of holding Wall Street accountable.
As we advance towards those ends, we ought not to be afraid of scoffers and propagandists on behalf of the status quo who will label us fascists, socialists, anarchists, etc. We ought to promote those commonsense solutions to the problems we face without fear of what those in power will label them.
The larger goal is to get the money out of Washington, because it is this single thing that is destroying everything. A purchased Washington allowed this to happen.
I totally disagree, we should be afraid of them because it works. Labeling works, propaganda works, and they are masters at it. How else did we get to this point. How else have they succeeded at dividing this nation against it's self. Why else would we have allowed this to happen to us, how else do they get people to act against their own personal interest.
So far, they have an incredible track record at winning, at fooling us, at getting us to think a certain way. And if we start leaning one way or the other, then one side will take this thing over and the other will rally it's base against it, and like everything else, will become just another tool of the 1%.
I am somewhat conservative, and I agree with you 100% vs. the idea Sister has. People like myself can get behind getting money out of Washington and the poltical process, and then we can get back to the normal partisan bickering and voting between liberals and conservatives, except this time, the fix won't be in. You'll have winners and losers in elections and policies will be enacted that one group or the other doesn't like, but at least it will have come from a democratic process, which is how it should be. The problem people like myself have with OWS is that we know (as Sister says) that this is just the first step. There are all sorts of other "solutions" they have in mind, ones that people like myself will probably not agree with, hence there is a large sector of America that withholds its support. Just keep it simple. We can argue and debate and vote on taxing the rich later, after the system itself has been restored.
Thank you, yes, exactly. Getting the money out of Washington is something everyone can get behind it, but once you start coming up with other things that are clearly either liberal or conservative you run the risk of dividing people and distracting people.
I agree, I don't care if politicians fight over philosophical differences, that's good, that's democracy, but when they use these differences merely to distract us and divide us, while they work for entirely different goals then the system no longer works.
I my self hold views that end up on the right and left, and I never liked how both sides feel it's perfectly okay to impose their will on the other. what ever happened to compromise?
Comprise is good sometimes. Other times it just makes for watered down useless legislation.
DC is listening.
http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
Heck, no. McCain and Fiengold tried the same thing some years back. There intentions were good, but remember it's the entire house, and more importantly, the party leadership that ends up writing the final version. McCain Feingold eventually passed, but it was so riddled with loop holes it did nothing to fix the problem.
It's like asking you to gut your own salary. They just won't pass legislation that cuts off their own funding. They won't do this, we have to do this for them.
I'm just shocked that anyone in DC is getting the right message from the garbled non-message of this movement!
I think we are saying the same thing. The current bill will probably get watered down, just like McCain Feingold did. That is the result of compromise. Maybe you've said this before, and I just don't remember - do you think we need a third party/ run candidates to get something meaningful passed?
Re: passing legislation that cuts their own funding. I'm not so sure that it is the politicians who are against it, so much as it it the 1% who are against it. The way I see it, any politician who has the integrity to stand on his record, should not fear publicly financed campaigns (or something along those lines). Because his opponent would be on the same level money wise. I think many politicians will fight it because that is what the BIG money is telling them to do. It's a circular problem.
Cue the laughter - I like your ADD comment below!
Yes, I do agree with a third party movement, but only after the system has been reformed. Anyone you throw in that mess will have to play by the current rules or risk being marginalized.
The party machines are against it as well. It's how they get their guys elected.
Yes, who knows what this thing is about now. I think everything and anything.
I understand. There is still life beyond OWS! Me too. But quickly, what didn't you like about the multitude thing? Is it legit? Are there anarchists there?
First, it was a little difficult to navigate. I don't like how things post. Also, various groups seem to be dominated by certain individuals, and they seem to focus on these elaborate solutions, that really don't mean much since they have no power to do anything about it.
Does that make sense? It seemed a little closed off, and well, little.
How is it going otherwise? What kinds of things have you been hearing or seeing out there?
I have been watching the 99%Declaration stuff. The more I see the more I think this is the way to go. Do you know anything about themultitude.org?
I 'll go to the 99% thing.
I don't like the multitude thing.
Just on this, really just using this to figure stuff out. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have cut back on this. Just have a lot of other stuff going on these days.
Remember how long the womens' suffrage movement took, or the civil rights movement. Effective legislation doesn't always pass on the first try. External pressure has worked in the past. It does take determination,commitment and a refusal to give up.
Yes, but those movements were organized and led by a leadership group. Two major things lacking with this. They also had a single focus, vision, this thing is all over the place. It's got ADD.
I think you're right. I've used the same phrase "all over the place". Focus, priorities seem to be needed, rather than a shotgun approach, which includes things that a majority will never support.
Reply to "We are out there" I hope we aren't outnumbered in the real world, out side of the leadership of this movement. It's time for the grownups to step up.
We are out there, the people who want that. Unfortunately, we are a scattered and I think out numbered by those that want this formless, leadership, lets go after all things all at once and achieved nothing in the process group.
Beats me. I try and take the emotion out of it. At the moment, the people who are dividing us are Obama, the OWS protesters, and MSNBC. They are using class warfare to attempt to demonize the rich. The Wall St. folks are just operating in a system that they are allowed to operate legally in, albeit with no morals. The system itself is what is corrupt. Change the system.
No, the 1% works to divide us, they use the parties, they use the media, It's not just Obama, or MSNBC, it's also Republican leadership, Fox news, Rush and Hannity. They are all part of the same system, that points the finger at the other side to keep us distracted while they all work for the same purpose. It's all of them.
why can't I post anymore?
What is going on???
why do I keep getting a 403 Forbidden
See if this worked.
Perhaps you are right, Pat, although I do see one side trying to finally get serious about spending, and the other not wanting to change a damn thing except for military expenditures,and think that somehow taxing the rich is going to be a panacea for our problems. I can do math, and the math says that we're a trillion and a half dollars a year in the hole, and the math from the IRS tells me that taxing the rich at 100% will barely dent this deficit. Math also tells me we can't add this deficit to the debt every year and survive, especially if interest rates rise, which they eventually will. It's just common sense to me. We've allowed ourselves to get extremely fat, and the diet is going to be painful. Look at what's happening to Greece. God forbid we ever react to our circumstances like that.
With your second part you are exactly correct, on every point. Yes, our spending is killing us, and yes, taxing the rich doesn't solve a thing, but both parties are to blame, they both love to spend our money, and yes, this spending will destroy us. But why do they spend? because they have to pay back those that put them where they are. Washington is just one big money grab, with the 1%, corporate America and special interest lined up around the corner.
It's an investment, through 50 mil into both parties and your going to have get a return on that investment, so our government shells out billions.
I want to respond to your post in two separate posts.
No they're not serious about spending, don't you notice, they are only serious when someone else holds the keys to the vault, when it's a Democratic administration in the white house. Only then do they go running back to their principals. But as soon as they are holding the keys it's a free for all. Show me a Republican administration that has cut spending and the size and scope of government. It hasn't happened, and look at what happened when they had everything, the house, senate and white House, they went on a free for all.
They don't care about their so called ideals. Sounds like I'm picking on Republicans here, but Democrats do the same exact thing.
They are mirror images of each other
Well, all I can say is that the floodgates are going to open at some point, and we can continue to point fingers and lay blame all we want but the floodgates will open nonetheless. Perhaps it's just a tendency for all societies to not do anything drastic until some catastrophe happens. The problem is that we can't even agree on what the problems are and do things to fix those problems, political correctness be damned.
It's because this thing needs leaders and organization, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, so it looks like this thing is doomed to fail. Sucks, because the issue is important.
gforz, I think you have identified the key to the situation "The problem is that we can't even agree on what the problems are and do things to fix those problems ...".
It is the political process that is flawed. Congress has been passing laws that support special interests. This needs to stop. The American people need to insist on a Problem/Solution approach to government. If there is no problem, then do not pass a law. If there is a problem, then solve it in the best interest of all American, not just the few.
OWS needs to develop a prioritized list of the problems they have identified and ask for suggestions on solutions.
I'm really interested in this comment.
Now we both agree that the first thing we have to do is reform government and get the money out of Washington and the political process. And we agree that, after doing this, we can get back to "normal" politics -- with the important change that, this time around, "the fix won't be in," as you elegantly put it.
But if that's so, then why are you hesitant to join in a broad coalition with OWS around the narrow issue of reforming the government through increased regulation of lobbying and campaign financing? All that I mean when I say that, for OWS, these reforms are just the "first step" in our struggle to hold Wall Street accountable is that, after these reforms are enacted, OWS will continue to participate in the political process. We may agree on some things, and we may disagree on others. But since you don't find anything objectionable about our having disagreements, why would you hesitate to form a coalition with us now around those things that we agree are of vital importance?
I'm also interested in the idea that you, as a conservative, find something objectionable about the idea of accountability when it is applied to corporations. Since when do conservatives balk at the idea of accountability for one's actions, of respect for the rule of law? All that we mean when we say that we "demand that Wall Street be held accountable" is that we recognize the need for law, including laws that regulate markets, and that people who break the law ought to be prosecuted in a court of law, regardless of how rich or important they are. That doesn't strike me as a "liberal" idea (though I do identify as politically left-wing); conservatives have been promoting these same ideas for decades. Indeed, these ideas don't strike me as bound up in any particular ideology, despite the attempts of those in power to label them 'fascist', 'socialist', 'anarchist', etc.; these ideas just seem like commonsense.
What do you think?
Sister, as I said, I have no problem supporting a fairly narrow set of goals for OWS, that being separating money from politics as much as possible. But I don't need to be part of a group to continue to participate in the political process, particularly one that has as many viewpoints on society and its ills as OWS does. It's kind of like when you're deciding on if you're a Republican or Democrat, you'd like to read their platform, what they as a group believe in. There is admittedly not a platform for OWS, and so a general concept of say, "We believe in freedom for all individuals" (which everyone would agree with) can then at a later date turn into "and we believe that to achieve freedom for all individuals that a minimum basic income should be estabished", thereby having the group coopt the initial support of other's with a potentially radical agenda. If you look at the signs and read blogs, there are just way too many directions this thing can go to get full support from people like me, and there are a lot of people like me. I might say I support OWS and talk to my friends about it (believing that getting the money out of Washington is the goal) and then all of a sudden I'm defending all the nutcases and half baked socialistic, anarchistic ideas that come out of the woodwork and the friends are all like "you're supporting THESE people?" I hope you can understand. As far as corporations being held accountable, absolutely if they have broken the law. But even Obama has said himself that while what they did was immoral, in most cases it was legal. It was also immoral for the government to push the lenders to increase home ownership as they did. The lenders did away with normal cr.edit underwriting and did stupid things like "stated income". Borrowers bought more expensive homes than they could afford, and then claim they can't understand the documents (especially the word "adjustable rate"). The loans immorally get packaged up as triple A rated bonds when the Wall St. guys know they are junk,but they have a willing buyer for them, so there you go. Yes, new regulations should be written and bonds or other instrument required to cover any potential losses on swaps or outlaw them entirely, I don't care. But they operated under the system that was legal at the time. Change the system. Conservatives I think would agree that some regulations to prevent abuse of the public are in order. However, we shouldn't expect corporations to be our babysitters, to prevent us from being of harm to ourselves. Like having to send an email to bank customers to remind them that their payment is due. All the stupid warnings on drug labels. Preventive testing by doctors to avoid lawsuits. The list could go on and on. A babied public. Just results in higher costs for everyone.
had the glass-steagal act not been taken off the books, what the bankers did would have been very illegal. this is legislation that must be enacted again to prevent further wrongdoings by the big banking interests.
I agree, but the government "promotes" certain things at various times, whether it be agricultural subsidies, green technology, or home mortgages, and they skew the market, letting people game the system on either the left or right. You have government guarantees that are a problem .
It's funny because we identify with opposing ends of the political spectrum, but I find very little to object to in what you said.
I don't think it's important to say "I endorse everything said in the name of OWS." I certainly don't agree with everything being said in this forum or out in the Zuccotti Park. Instead, I say: "I support OWS in its goal of holding Wall Street accountable." I would imagine that you would be comfortable saying: "I support OWS in its goal of reforming government so as to get the money out of Washington and the political process. But that's about it." That's fine; OWS should be proud to have even your limited support. After all, if anyone is going to get strong lobbying and campaign finance reforms passed, it's going to need to be a broad coalition of people who agree on the fundamental importance of this issue even as we disagree on so much else. I don't think OWS has to change who they are anymore than I think you should change who you are; I think there's enough common ground here concerning this narrow issue that we can form a broad coalition already despite our differences.
I'm actually delighted to find that I agree with just about every bit of your diagnosis of the reasons we're in this mess and the ways out of this mess. All too often I hear people who claim to be conservatives dogmatically reject the very idea of regulation, even when it's clear that the system is broken (and, as Obama got right in that quote you refer to, the system is certainly broken when such dishonest dealing and abuse of the public can be technically legal). Even when the laws are already on the books, some of these self-proclaimed conservatives cry 'class warfare!' when the government tries to enforce these laws, as though a white collar grants one immunity from human laws. This contradicts the very essence of what I understand conservativism to be about -- responsibility, accountability, respect for the rule of law -- and I'm glad to see that there are still some "true conservatives" out there.
All the best,
you both agree more than you disagree because maybe you are realizing that the whole thing has been a shell game all along. the left nor the right have ever fulfilled what they claim and are rather used by the power that run washington to keep the populous in an argument, both sides blaming the other. my stand on it all is that the original structure of this government is fine we just need to wake up to how we have all been blinded. i do also believe that steps to get $ out of politics are a must. as far as getting congress to pass balanced budgets, i am with warren buffet on that, just enact legislation that states that if they don't pass a balanced budget, they cannot run for another term, and that is for every one of them. simple and very effective.
This is just silly.
Yes, we want to take the influence of money out of Washington. But that's not the end of the movement; that's just the first step. It's not enough that Washington be free of corruption; a corruption-free Washington must still do something. The reason we want to take the influence of money out of Washington is not so that we can go home and declare "mission accomplished", but so that we can advance our further goal of holding Wall St. accountable.
And, yes, propaganda works. But do you know what would be even worse than promoting real solutions to real problems and being called bad names by those in power? Being too cowardly to promote any solutions at all and instead staying at home and keeping our ideas to ourselves. Of course we should know what we're up against, but we shouldn't be afraid to promote the better world that is within our grasp because that'd be "too political."
It's not silly, you talk about an issue not being the end, and that's all well and good, but if this thing doesn't get more focused, more organized, it will end before it has even begun. Your putting a overburdened cart before the horse.
Holding Wall street accountable is a waste of time, a non issue. They, like everyone else, simply took what was given to them, just like millions did when all of a sudden there was a lot of money being thrown around to buy houses we couldn't afford. Wall Street is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. The true problem is that the 1% have purchased direct control over our government, that is the root cause, the true problem, everything else is just a symptom.
It's not cowardly, it's common sense, that if we start to come up with all these pie in the sky solutions that will undoubtedly fall into one category or the other, this thing will either destroy it's self or be taken over by the enemy.
But don't listen to me, go on your merry way, and push your political views on the rest of us, so that you can alienate 1/2 of the 99% and allow one politcal party to take this thing over.
way to go, great job.
Look. OWS should be happy to join a broad coalition to accomplish the kinds of reforms you're talking about, i.e. regulating lobbying and campaign financing. But that will not exhaust OWS's goals.
If you think that holding Wall Street accountable is "a waste of time, a non issue", then you are welcome to join us around the narrow issue of government reform. But, ultimately, it seems that you will not be interested in the rest of OWS's goals, since OWS is about holding Wall Street accountable.
OWS should not support "pie in the sky solutions." We should support realistic solutions, regardless of whether they are endorsed by one party or the other and regardless of whether the powers that be call them 'fascist' or 'anarchist' or 'socialist' or whatever false description they think will help discredit these sound proposals so as to preserve the status quo.
Look. OWS should be happy to join a broad coalition to accomplish the kinds of reforms you're talking about, i.e. regulating lobbying and campaign financing. But that will not exhaust OWS's goals.
If you think that holding Wall Street accountable is "a waste of time, a non issue", then you are welcome to join us around the narrow issue of government reform. But, ultimately, it seems that you will not be interested in the rest of OWS's goals, since OWS is about holding Wall Street accountable.
OWS should not support "pie in the sky solutions." We should support realistic solutions, regardless of whether they are endorsed by one party or the other and regardless of whether the powers that be call them 'fascist' or 'anarchist' or 'socialist' or whatever false description they think will help discredit these sound proposals so as to preserve the status quo.
Again, there are root causes and there are symptoms. It is a waste of time to attack symptoms, with out taking on the root cause. The root cause is a simple one, fix that, and the rest will take care of its self. Remain leaderless, unfocused and all over the place and we will never come close to fixing the root cause.
Again, we agree that government reform (regulating lobbying and campaign finance) must happen first. But OWS sees such reform as just the first step towards holding Wall Street accountable, whereas you would rest on your laurels after this is accomplished.
We can build a broad coalition around the narrow issue of governmental reform. But it seems that we'll have to part ways after that, since you seem to be uninterested in what a reformed government does whereas we demand that such a government, liberated from the corrosive influence of money, use its Constitutional powers to stand up to Wall Street and hold it accountable through commonsense regulation, oversight, and vigorous prosecution of white-collar crime.
It is my belief that the founding fathers got it right, that the form of government they designed works. It's just been high jacked by the one percent. And that is my singular focus.
If someone wants to get into politics after the system has been restored then fine. But for now, if we wish to maintain numbers and support we need to leave politics out of it.
Once it's been fixed then have at it.
Yes, I support our Constitution as well. And I agree that the influence of money in Washington has screwed up the system of government articulated in the Constitution, highjacking it for the 1%.
I'm not sure what you mean by "getting into politics" and "leaving politics out of it." If by 'politics' you mean partisan party politics, then I wholeheartedly agree. We shouldn't allow OWS to be incorporated into one party or the other, and we who are members of the OWS movement should not promote or reject an idea because of who proposed it.
If by 'politics' you mean 'anything that the government does', however, then I strongly disagree with you. As I said, staying away from politics in this sense would mean staying at home and keeping your ideas to yourself. OWS is a political movement and we will make our demands heard. We ought to support good solutions to the problems we face, and that in itself means being involved in politics in this sense. Note that you seem to agree with this, at least in some limited sense, since governmental reforms have to be passed by the government, so it is impossible to promote regulation of lobbying and campaign financing without also supporting "getting into politics" in this sense.
Finally, if by 'politics' you mean what the government will do after it is reformed, then I respectfully disagree with you. OWS should continue it's struggle to hold Wall Street accountable even after it achieves the governmental reforms that are a necessary precondition for doing that. But that shouldn't alienate you or anyone else who believes that holding Wall Street accountable is "a waste of time, a non issue". As you've shown, despite our differences, we still agree that we need far stronger regulation of lobbying and campaign financing right now. Once we accomplish this goal together, we may have to part ways. Life will go on; you'll have winners and losers in elections and policies will be enacted that one group or the other doesn't like, but at least it will have come from a democratic process, which is how it should be. OWS should participate in that democratic process.
I think getting the money out of politics is as important as people becoming more partipative in government. Thats how we keep this going and hold our elected officials accountable going forward. We have allowed the 1% to hijack our government, because many of us have not used our voices to get involved enough.
All I'm saying is that the most important issue is taking our government back, and to do that we must remain apolitical, and away from issues that can be divisive. That's all. We can always agree to disagree.
needs to post stuff
what the
Bravo! The idea is to create controls so that things are done as expected. Simple is the best solution.
Thanks
True
We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.
When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department you see criminals.
Our corruption dates back decades to when those who in trying to preserve slavery had to find new ways to preserve it and so created an advanced form of slavery.
only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom and choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.
How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.
our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.
In America the population has been transformed in two major voting groups but they only have one choice.
They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.
Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.
Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans themselves are realizing that they cannot sustain themselves under their current system of government.
Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??
Occupy Washington and demand that all government officials resign their posts.
We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.
http://wesower.org
Don't agree, we should take over the Democratic party, but not let them take over us. Just like the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. If you go the third party route you will go the way of the Green Party. You will never do anything good for the country without a major political party to organize voters.
The only thing that can be accomplished at this time by adding a "third" party is litterally handing a win to the party you don't want in governement. Votes would get taken away from a party that would be the lesser of two evils, but that is what has happened in the past. Then you really get stuck with what you didn't want at all.
No. The parties have been purchased. And your wrong, the tea party has not taken over the Republican party, it's the other way around, they are now a weapon in the republican arsenal, one of many. We lean left and we become the same for the Democrats. They will take control, not the other way around.
Agree the parties have been purchased. That's why you have them sign a pledge to support an amendment to get money out of politics before you vote for them. As far as leaning left, just about all of the positions I've heard from OWS are left-leaning. We take over the Democrats and force them to accede to our demands, that's our best path to real change.
I also want money out of politics. The only thing is it would have to start with a politician that has already taken money, but pledges never to do it in the future. If they agreed "now" not to take any money, the fact is they would never win an election. I can't believe that any congressman likes spending over 50% of their time campaigning for money to keep them re-electable, when they could be working on the business of the people. I have heard many state that this money they must raise isn't anything they really want to be doing. It is just how Washington is now, and it needs to be changed.
The only thing about legislation is they use that as well. They come up with some huge document, and come up with some catchy title, like rid Washington of money amendment, then gut the whole thing and riddle it with loop holes, just like the did with McCain Finegold. They won't cut off their money supply on their own.
It would have to be a properly worded amendment to the constitution, that's the only way it will work. A bill passed by congress will only get weakened in committee or struck down by the Supreme Court. There is work going at GetMoneyOut.com to create such an amendment.
An amendment might work better, but even the constitution can be trampled on. But the idea of an amendment is appealing.
I just know that the Tea Party played a very important part in that the Representatives they voted into the House caused a big problem when it came to the Debt ceiling. Regardless who is running the Republican party far to the right, I am just stating that their presence has made some impact. They sent a message they wanted with representatives and got some of what they wanted and/or changed business as usual.
They did play a role but the people they elected are either a sham or they won't last long. For one, sure they made stand with the debt ceiling, but they were the same jokers that voted for the budget. So the agreed to the spending, but just didn't want to pay for it. Irresponsible at best, down right shady at worst.
Still, lets say their are some that actually have conscious. They will never move up, they will never reach any position of leadership, because this system only promotes and rewards those that play the game correctly.
How can a movement that is about challenging the social structure of the US, including discussing how our system is run by the rich, stay "apolitical"?
I'm afraid this isn't really possible.
How about non-partisan. Does that sound better. We shouldn't fall into the old pitfalls, created by the 2 parties, that break every single issue into Liberal vs. Conservative, because as it was designed to do, these arguments only serve to distract and divide.
Does that make more sense?
It does make more sense, but not all politics is about being a Democrat or a Republican or a Liberal or a Conservative. The two parties operate within a certain framework that some of us want to challenge altogether. For example, socialists see both parties are serving the interests of the capitalist system, and that we need to replace both. This is a political stance, but not one that operates within that "partisan" framework that we usually see on CNN
And I say, lets leave all that out of there. Communists, socialists, anarchists, how about, just get the money out of Washington. That is none of those things, and something all of things can get behind.
Sure that phrase sounds good indeed. But when it comes to actually applying "getting money out of Washington" what will that mean? I'm not sure such a goal could be fully achieved because of the constitution (lobbying, for example, is protected free speech)
And how such a "demand" would be implemented would certainly surface other divisions of political ideas and sectors of society
What it means is stopping, or at least severely curbing, all types of funding and contributions to political parties and candidates. All of it, lobbying is actually fine, but the contributions have to stop.
There are other things that have to stopped as well, like the revolving door where a congressman can later get a job with a company or in an industry he or she had a hand in regulating, or crafting legislation for.
Anything that doesn't pass the smell test needs to go. Wherever some form of financial compensation can be provided to elected officials we must put an end to this.
Lobbying is fine and should be protected. But they should operate in a system where money has not already been given to our representatives. Let them argue a particular point of view, without being able to hold a dollar amount over their our representatives heads.
anyone can lobby, but when you combine it with campaign contributions and all a lobbyist has to do is remind the rep of how much financial support the particular industry or company has provided the rep with, well then the system becomes broken. Argue the facts without the bribes.
Yes, yes, yes, this was one of my original posts, and many people, not all, but many have chosen just to hammer me on that single word. My argument was that we should try and stay away from the tired old liberal vs. conservative arguments, whose sole purpose is to distract and divide and to fire up each parties respective base. That was my single point, that the single issue is, (a guess the better term) a non-partisan issue, one we can all get behind regardless of political views.
I think that the new title of the post better represents your point, which I wholly endorse.
Thank you, finally. I won't make that mistake again.
wow, that was odd
OWC has no choice but to be political, they don't have to operate under labels, they can create a brand new one.
OWS is it's own worst enemy. It will not succeed, and is just a big waste of time.
So why are you here?
Because I'm still holding out a glimmer of hope that it can change. There are a lot of people in this thing that think just like I do.
But as each day passes, as this thing remains disorganized, and as liberal groups, and the democratic party continue to make inroads into this movement, the chances of this thing succeeding become less and less.
Maybe we just have to work with what we have. You just say, we do not agree to be a part of your political party, but you are welcome to support our beliefs and requests. Just like you work for us, not us for you. If that is understood you have something to work with.
Party should not be in the conversation is all. It only serves to divide and distract.
The old saying goes," Rome was not built in a day" comes to mind. This movement will no doubt have rough patches but it takes time to educate the masses on what is actually going on around them.
There are also many who are threatened by this movement so if there is alot of negative publicity it means this movement is getting noticed and it scares them. Good thing in my book
Your right, Rome wasn't built in a day, but at least they had a plan, at least they had a vision, a strategy, etc...
You're right. These are dangerous ideas they are throwing out there and threaten those who have all the power. If we sit around and remain this disorganized then they will destroy this movement.
The most likely outcome? Like the Tea Party now belongs to the Republican party, this will become part of the democratic party. A hostile take over.
We don't have time to remain this disorganized.
your right.
OWS is it's own worst enemy. It will not succeed, and is just a big waste of time.
Agree 100% that we need to stay non-partisan. All of us have our own political thoughts and agendas that we care about most. What unites us is a desire to have a democratic process where we, not corporations and big money, get to decide the direction of our country. Let's unite around a fair democratic process with WALL STREET OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS. No big donations for politicians! No corporate influence over the democratic process! In order for this movement to succeed as a revolution, we need to focus on the process not on the details.
i agree, in order to get things done, we need to stay simple and focus on the root of the problem. once our federal government is accountable to the people once again, all other problems will be taken care of. the most important thing is that all of us realize how the current power uses the blame game and left and right rhetorical speech to divide the nation. we really need to wake up to this truth before we can do anything. if we don't, the movement will come to nothing.
Yes! But how do we get that through to the rest, and how do we get that through to the people who started this thing? because if we don't do that, all this will be for naught.
Any demand for change involves a political act, whether you write your elected "representative" or you sit in Liberty Park with OWS.
OWS needs to begin distilling their complaints. What are the problems that need to be fixed? We've already got a steady stream of issues from this Forum. Someone needs to distill, condense.
You can't fix a problem until you have defined it.
OWS doesn't necessarily need to list all the corrective measures it believes are needed to fix the problems. But it definitely needs to start a master list of problems and potential fixes.
Yes, I agree. The only problem is it seems that there are two factions on OWS, those who want what we want, more focus, organization etc... and those that want the exact opposite, to remain formless, and to take up any and every issue that pops into their heads.
I say a post yesterday about slavery. Yes, a terrible thing, but what does that have to do with reform in Washington.
So the issue is (a) formless or (b) focused.
I think the Hearing on the abuses of Goldman Sachs is an excellent way to begin focusing.
No it isn't. Goldman Sacks, and the entire financial districts is merely a symptom of the problem. The root cause of most of this is the corruption of our political process. Get the 1%'s money out of Washington, and most of this will fix it's self.
I'm sorry, you guys are the biggest fools on earth. You HAVE to stand for something. If you don't, another group will and that group will accomplish their goals. Meanwhile you folks will just continue to piss/crap in the streets and just piss more and more people off. get over the "coexist" bs and stand for something.
OWS is creating problems and trying to upset a country founded on capitalism. in every society there are classes no matter what kind of society it is, communist, capitalist, fascist, whatever. There will always be a high, middle, and low class, you cannot change that. There is no way for a country to work the way it should with everyone on the same playing field. it just is not possible. so to all you OWS people out there, your cause might be just in your mind and sound good on paper but in the real world, it is not possible. You are just creating a stage on which you make noise and yell at the government that allows you to protest and try to destroy the country that gave you the rights to try and destroy it. be thankful you live in a country as good as this one, or go to Somalia or Iraq or North Korea and try to protest there about big business and see how it goes.....
Capitalism is not the problem. A government that has been purchased by the ruling elite is. The two things are separate. I am actually for our current economic system, as well as our current form of government. Just want to rid the damn thing of all that dirty money.
Now I agree, because this thing is do disorganized, so formless, leaderless, it does open the door for all that other stuff, which is why this will either adapt or perish.
I actually agree with you, against the people who actually think like that. The system works, it just has to cleaned up.
it does, it is not perfect but it is the best one on the planet and we just have to make it work, GO AMERICA
I agree, in my humble opinion, a capitalistic economy and a representative government is the best combination. I believe that the founding fathers got it right.
But I also believe that this form of government has been high jacked and now does not work correctly. It needs reform, we need to get the money out of politics, so that we can go back to the way it should work.
If we don't we will run this great nation into the ground.
By the way, do you belong to a particular party or lean right, left etc...?
I agree, there needs to be more people in politics like Teddy Roosevelt, people that stuck to there guns and did what was best for the country. People like that are what we need...
I do lean to the right but i also listen to both sides and choose whatever is best for the country, it is usually right side but still..
ahhhh yes, my favorite president, who stood up to every form of corruption, starting with the NYPD, then NY state gov't, then finally at the federal level. A TR is what we need, but they are extremely rare.
The only reason I asked is because no matter who you listen to whether it's Fox News or CNBC, Rush/Hannity or Maddow/Oberman, they are all propagandists whose sole purpose is to keep ether side looking at the other, blaming the other, while the ones actually calling all the shots get away with highway robbery.
I myself am pretty much in the middle, supporting issues on both sides, but mostly the right. But one thing I am sure of is that neither Republicans or Democrats work for us, they've been purchased, and now work for special interest and corp. America.
Yes that is true, but the OWS is not really helping with that, they are hardcore democrat or anarchists or commies...we just need someone that will help the nation as a whole, not a particular group
Not sure what this is, but at least they are standing up against the actual problem. At least they are bringing this problem to light, and not allowing us to get distracted and forget about it. Not saying this thing is perfect, but at least they are doing something.
But if they don't get their act together this will be an opportunity lost. I truly believe that if this system does not get reformed, our own government, Republicans and Democrats alike, will ruin this nation. I truly believe the future of this nation hangs in the balance on this single issue. So I have hope that this OWS movement, turns into something more, and actually achieves something.
I have little faith that this will happen.
yup, AS much as i hope that our nation will turn into some shining light to the world and become a completely just country and be honest in politics, it just isnt going to happen i think...at lest not anytime soon
But that's just it, it's not about a need for honest politics, it's about the fact that the entire political process is completely broken, that it has been totally and absolutely corrupted. There's a difference. and we don't have that much time. To just wait around and hope for the best, will only result in the collapse of this nation.
If we don;t change things, and change them soon, we are toast.
by change them you mean we need honest people....the system works perfectly but the people in the system are not good.....
Sort of, actually you need to reform the system first, (Rid it of money) then you can begin to replace them through elections.
The system rewards and promotes those that play by current rules. We need to change those rules.
Yes, too many will try to occupy the Occupy movement. Slant it to fit their needs such as the original Tea Parties transformation into a right-wing extremist movement. Let OWS truly represent ALL THE PEOPLE, stay non-partisan.
Watch out for militant groups that will be inserted trying to undermine these 'peaceful' demonstrations. They will cause problems which will be blamed on OWS. See Oakland Movement...
Who were those guys causing trouble in the middle of a peaceful movement?
The 1% will sneak in to disrupt and cause problems...
Do not let unions, communist parties, or political groups steal OWS message in an attempt to make it their own.
The "1%" is made up of people that have money and have businesses......your 99% is made up of radical hippies that believe in world peace and that want a country that is the utopia of the world....well guess what? It is never going to be perfect it can only be the best.....not perfect
Agree
There, I made he change. Now can we focus on the actual argument.
phew
phew
phew
NO NO NO We have to be political to take our country - We need to begin forming our own party now. We won't win this by protests - We will win this by playing their game and throwing it in their faces. We are the 99% and if we can unite, we have 99% of the vote. We can acomplish anything we want.
NO NO NO We have to be political to take our country - We need to begin forming our own party now. We won't win this by protests - We will win this by playing their game and throwing it in their faces. We are the 99% and if we can unite, we have 99% of the vote. We can acomplish anything we want.
NO NO NO We have to be political to take our country - We need to begin forming our own party now. We won't win this by protests - We will win this by playing their game and throwing it in their faces. We are the 99% and if we can unite, we have 99% of the vote. We can acomplish anything we want.
NO NO NO We have to be political to take our country - We need to begin forming our own party now. We won't win this by protests - We will win this by playing their game and throwing it in their faces. We are the 99% and if we can unite, we have 99% of the vote. We can acomplish anything we want.
There is no way to change our political process in the time span available. We need to work with what we have. We need to see who will stand with the OWS as far as "getting money out of politics". Make them join us, stand by us. You can use them, instead of look at it as them taking you over. WE WANT MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. We want the huge wage gap between the wealthy and the middle class to start working for all of us. You say this is two of the things we want the most, are you willing to work with that? If not we will find someone who will.
Indepat said to me:
"If you read any of my posts what you'll notice is a common thread, that I wouyld like to see this thing succeed, but that I am not too hopeful, because it's being led by a million idiots, much like yourself."
I'm not an idiot therefore Indepat is a TROLL. And, also, the movement is not being run by them.
If Indepat is not a troll then I must be Alice, and this is wonderful wonderland. Anybody find that rabbit hole yet?
Being Apolitical would kill this movement since by definition this movement will not gain any political power. (Reread the premise above for this thread, it is clearly stated)
If this movement has no desire to gain any power to change the government, what could it's purpose possibly be?
Then maybe there is no purpose (it is confusion as Indepat proposes). If that's true then Indepat, in a very strange way, is correct in his pessimism for the OWS, it will fail. It would be precisely because the movement decided to be an Anarchist movement. That would be tragic turn.
That is exactly what Apolitical means. Anarchy. Do we understand?
I hope so because I'm serious about what this movement really is and this thread is not what this movement is about.
Reform should be "non-partisan" in nature. Does that term work better?
No, I do not mean Anarchism, which I'm starting to believe this movement is actually about.
I am for reform, that is not liberal or conservative in nature, so I should have used the term, non-partisan.
I know OWS is trying to avoid having demands on the present politcal system, BUT can't we all agree we need PUBLICLY FININACED ELECTIONS. This is not a democratic or republican "idea". It is an American idea whose time has definitely come.
Yes, that needs to be part of a comprehensive plan that eliminates the unfair access and influence that money can buy.
We need to support policies, not parties.
We need to support reform of our government. If those policies are coming out of one party or the other then they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Until we get reform, all policies are suspect.
We need to support policies, not parties.
The Tea Party and OWS have a lot in common. The Tea Party are Republicans who feel their party no longer speaks for their constituents. The OWS are Democrats who feel that their party no longer speaks for their constituents. They are both right. The political parties are no longer for the people by the people, they are for the corporation by the corporation. The people no longer have any control over what a politician says or does. Politicians are merely puppets now, dancing on strings pulled by Wall Street, Bankers, Corporations and Lobbyists. The people merely vote on whether the puppet wears a blue or a red suit.
While your assessment of the Tea party is dead on, I don't see OWS as being the exact opposite. I don't think OWS is trying to change the Democratic party, I think they're looking for government reform.
I totally agree with the rest of your assessment.
The republicans did not take the tea party, the tea party took the republicans. If you review the election in 2010, it was Tea Party backed candidates ousting established republicans. Only a few cases were Tea Party people replacing democrat seats.
Incorrect. Changing some players will not make a difference. So long as the rules remain the same, changing the players won't make a damn difference. It may look like it did, and Fox news, and those AM radio guys will tell you it worked, but it didn't. Why would they say these things? because they are part of the system.
Trust me, I have nothing against the Tea Party, in fact, I applaud the effort. They just chose the wrong tactic. They believed in their party. they believed that the republican party still stood for something. But they were wrong, like the Democratic party, the republican party sold out long ago.
Changing the personnel is a flawed strategy, you have to change the system first. Once that is done, then you can change the personnel.
If we could take the organization and leadership and will of the tea party, and combine it with the focus of OWS, we might have something.
All members of our government, police forces, military and so on are charged with a duty in their oath. The main point is to protect the constitution or uphold the constitution. Unfortunately, the congress is not acting within the constitution or we would have had a convention to amend the constitution under article v.
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?3-Letter-to-your-Representatives
We all want to take the campaign cash away from the thugs that run our government. The only way to do this is use our rights under Article V.
Yes, exactly, a single issue. But we'll never force real change with this mess.
We have that power if you all within the movement are willing to go in that direction. Are you willing to accept the status-quo or make serious sacrifices to generate the support for what is legal under the constitution.
Feel free to send me a message. I would like to get in touch with you and invite you to our conferences. In the mean time, you can get more information here. http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?3-Letter-to-your-Representatives
Very interesting. I will look into it. I'll also send you a message, yes, I'm interested in this.
I am sure you will love what you will see. Thanks to Christopher Brown and John De Herrera, I was brought up to speed.
I hope so. Because I'm losing faith in this thing.
Grass roots movements start from the ground up. Following history, I reference Gandhi and Dr. King. It absolutely can work, but it will take a ground swell to get the attention of the media more than we are currently getting.
But it also takes leadership, (Dr. King, Gandhi) and organization. I hope your on the right track.
Behind the scenes, there is leadership. A movement this large does not form without some type of leadership structure. The problem is that the banks will not let someone with a voice as big as ours survive out front so the movement seems to be keeping the leadership largely underground until the movement is large enough to draw the line in the sand for our own safety reasons.
Yes, but I'm starting the believe that the leadership is all for this formless, leaderless garbage. The actual guy who started this is an anarchist.
I agree to a degree without a doubt. Anarchists can walk in between the lines more than traditional thinkers can, but they can incite people to take action. My advice is to investigate. http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?3-Letter-to-your-Representatives Join this forum and learn about Article V and also contact me as I had stated before. I would love to give you some clarity on a viable direction. This even reaches out to independents outside the movement that are struggling as well.
Maybe OWS should kill the partisanship, the country was never supposed to have it in the first place.
It's killing everything now because people no longer vote on what they think is a good idea, they just vote on what their party is supposed to think. That's why the loudest Republican's all sound bat shit crazy, because they HAVE to negate what the Democrats want.
Dems: We want clean food, water, and air! Repubs: We have to stop cleaning the food, water, and air!
It doesn't even help them out. They are willingly choosing to do things that will hurt them as long as it means they don't agree. I mean Democrats could jump up and say they want to make prayer mandatory in schools and I bet you that Republicans would have a problem with it.
It can't kill it because it's becoming it. It's starting to lean hard to the left.
I agree, but I have a different take. Both parties just use their ideals to fire up their bases and demonize the other side, but nether party actually believes or works for them anymore. It's all a sham. Don't think for a minute that democrats care about anything but special interest. The same goes for Republicans.
OWS has bedded with the liberal progressive agenda of the modern Democratic party in much the same way the TEA Party bedded with the progressives of the Republican party. This has already happened. OWS has already been ideologically co-opted. The actual declaration is merely a formality.
I don't know if it's already "bedded", but it's definitely fluffing the pillow and pulling back the covers.
I new this was a great possibility, but I had hoped this would be different and would be able to eventually force real change. What an opportunity lost.
The major problem is this: OWS has attracted support from a lot of people and groups that do not shed a positive light on the movement (to many moderate or conservative Americans): Communist Party USA, CAIR, Black Panthers, the Ayatollah, North Korea, Hezbollah, Pelosi, The American N A Z I party, etc... When mentioned on these forums, you always get someone who says "So, just because they support us, it doesn't mean we support them"... (funny since they didn't buy that argument when TEA partiers made the same statements to denounce racism). BUT, under this "GA" model of governance, they would need a majority vote to denounce support from these groups and I don't see them even bringing it to a vote (thus, support by proxy). Hell, even if they did bring it to a vote, I'm not sure they'd get the votes to denounce it anyhow.
Then, on top of that, you have the homeless guy who died in a tent in OccupyOKA (being investigated as a homicide), you got multiple charges of rape at various venues, you have anarchist activity at many of the Occupies... it just doesn't look good for OWS... I would say they're losing focus, but I'm not sure they've ever really had any clear focus.
I've been on the fence since the beginning, asking people to convince me why I'm in the 99% with them when I'm nowhere near the 1% - but I'm not in the same craptacular financial boat as the rest of them - and sorry but - "You're with us or against us" doesn't make for a compelling argument - it didn't for Bush and it doesn't for OWS.
No, the major problem is it's all over the place. Formless, disorganized, leaderless, is the enemy of progress. That's the thing anarchist fail to see.
There are a lot of saboteurs on this forum.
There's a lot of everything in this forum. The lack of leadership, organization, focus, a single message, etc... will be OWS undoing. OWS's worst enemy is itself.
That is what I think may happen too. The Anarchism that they are practicing with its 90% consensus to do anything is destined to fail. Just look at the US Senate with its 60% requirement (of course, it was already unbalanced toward small population states to begin with). If they would just focus on a few items that most everyone could agree on like getting the money out of politics or increasing the representation in Congress, alot more people would support this movement.
Agreed, please support my doomed to fail post. We need to get the word out.
Please...find your unity and voice through singing together. Listen to the words of Jackson Browne "I Am a Patriot" sing and find your strength and peace...Please do not resort to violence and anger..It will defeat us all.
What will defeat this thing is the lack of organization, the lack of focus, of leadership, of a single message, a vision an actual strategy. This is what will defeat this movement. OWS's greatest enemy is it's self and it's lack of organization.
Tell us what you mean by Apolitical? Is it Anarchy?
No, just that this thing should stay away from the tired old arguments of Liberal vs. Conservatism. That getting the money out of Washington is not Liberal or Conservative, and that going that route will only serve to divide us.
Hell no, no Anarchy, anarchy has to be one of the most ridiculous concepts of all time. I'm not kidding. It's a ridiculous notion.
By the way, I'm now convinced this thing would like to remain an anarchistic movement, but will soon become an extension of the liberal democratic machine. What a waste of time.
Indepat is a Troll. This troll doesn't care what this thread is about. This troll just wants to waste our precious time running us in circles. It's a troll trap.
I'm done with this thread
I'm not a troll, I'm someone who thinks that the original issue, ending the corruption of Washington by the 1%, is the most important issue of our time, and that if this movement does not succeed, then this will be a great opportunity lost.
I also think that at this time, due to the lack or organization, leadership and a coherent message, this movement is in danger of failing.
So, you my friend, are either a troll yourself, or completely ignorant, or both.
Disagree. I have read many of Indepat's posts, they are all reasonable and just call for more organization and leadership in the movement, more focus on the issues at hand rather than the scattered ideas blowing all over the place. A troll is someone who comes to purposely disrupt, it is clear that Indepat is trying to be helpful by pointing out flaws in the movement that many of us have mentioned. This does not make us trolls, and calling us such will drive us away from the movement for good. If I am part of the 99% and the movement presumes to speak for me, I must be allowed to have a voice. I agree with Indepat, OWS needs more organization. This does not make me a troll nor does it make Indepat a troll.
Lightweight.
i agree with you. it is important for the movement to stay non-partisan and i agree TOTALLY that we need to keep our focus simple first. LETS GET TOGETHER ON THE GOAL OF GETTING BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS OUT OF POLITICS. right now they are running the show.
Exactly. If consensus is what everyone's looking for, then we need to form a consensus around this single issue and we need to do it fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
I totally agree and have been trying to do the same. But this thing does not want to get organized, nor do they want leadership. They want to remain formless, leaderless. And that's why thins thing will fail. It's a waste of time.
i don't have a problem with leaderless. I do have a problem with formless and not organized. All across the country people are facing the same problems, over and over in different places. Each time they are doing it alone, without network support, because the network has its head so far up its ass that it can't organize the network.
I'm going to be busting my ass here to get an injunction. There is no clearinghouse site for discussion of legal issues. So we get to look at examples we can track down on google, rather than operate inside of the pool of knowledge which should have been built on a wiki.
And your right, unless that changes the movement will fail.
What I think leadership can do, is focus all the energy in one direction.
Good luck with your injunction.
thats what i try to do, and my moment of leadership...
thanks.. i will need it..
Yes agree! We have had the most success so far on issues like getting the $60/year Bank of america charge reconsidered. Because that was a real plan of action that all political ideologies could get behind. It is one of a few real success stories that would not have happened without occupy wall street. we need more of these success stories
Yes, exactly, lets just stay clear of the whole liberal vs. conservative, especially when this effects both, and when those arguments can only divide us.
yeeeeessssssssss!!!!
just as extreme for one to tow the party line, it is equally extreme in the other direction to think this can go anywhere without political action. by suggesting nobody do anything, just hold tight, you are begging someone else to take advantage of the momentum. it's hard to find the middle road but it must be done.
You are all missing the point and I have to admit, I'm getting tired of explaining it. I just think it would be best to avoid the same old tired arguments, that have been used for years to divide and distract us. The whole Liberal vs. Conservative argument should have no place here, because the single issue, money in Washington, is nether a liberal nor conservative issue.
That's all, no reason for everyone to get their panties in a wod.
No politics for the 99% means allowing Wall Street to rule politics. A free debate of all political views that speak in the name of the oppressed against the ruling class is absolutely necessary because a set of far-reaching demands to reconstruct society on the basis of equality is necessary.
The presentation and wide-ranging discussion of the views of working-class parties and tendencies among millions -- especially those who are not a part of OWS -- is what genuine democracy is all about.
I think people misunderstood what I was trying to say on this. I was just trying to say that there is a single issue here, the money in Washington, and that this issue is not a liberal or conservative issue, or a Democrat Republican issue. That it was an issue everyone can get behind, but if we start getting into the whole Liberal vs. Conservative stuff, then the 99% turns into a 45/45 split ad that hurts the cause.
I firmly believe, that while both parties once believed and fought for the ideals that are associated with them, they no longer do. They merely use ideals, to distract and divide us. And that's what I hope doesn't happen here.
But as you can see, that's already happening.
fair enough.
If someone talks about the common good for all, everyone yells "Communism!". And so on and so forth for every kind of ideology.
These people are scared of the idea because of the way it has been implemented in the past.
The best interest of a nation is the best interest of every individual in that nation. We should all, every one of us, deserve not to worry about survival.
We need to come up with something new, and something that is incorruptible.
Nothing is incorruptible. We have to study why great great social movements degenerated, that is, to examine the concrete history of specific social movements, ranging from the Bolshevik Party to the American trade unions. There are no shortcuts.
Yes, but we must look to these movements to what went wrong, learn from it, and do something new.
It's going to take a long time, but the fastest way to a clean-up is public scrutiny-complete visibility of everything.
I agree. In my opinion, central, absolutely central, to all of this is the study of the life and career of Trotsky and his analysis of why the first successful working-class revolution the first working class state degenerated. It is with Trotsky that this science begins.
The defeats of the working class at the hands of Stalinism were not a small matter in destroying the political consciousness of millions of ordinary people and their hope their own ability to create an equal, democratic and scientifically planned society.
Stalinism and Bolshevism - 1937 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/stal-o20.shtml
Personally, in my opinion, and that's all this is and everyone has a right to their own, I like our form of government, I personally believe that pour founding fathers got it right, I like a representative democracy. What I don't like is that it's been purchased and subverted to work for a very narrow interest and few. The system is still good, it just has to be taken back. We need to get the money out so that our government can again work for the good of the people, all the people, not just a small percentage of people.
Well, yes. It has served us until it became corruptible. Money came before people. Everything went insane. And it has happened before in Greece. Aristocracy, yet again, became the huge influencers and now the controllers.
For now it can work again if we work with the original constitution, take out the useless ammendments in it, and respectfully return this country to the hands of our hard-working americans.
And money needs to be given another look. If it is easily hideable, it will be easy to do 'illegal' transactions and keep 'offshore bank accounts'.
That is my opinion.
All systems are corruptible. We just need to do a better job of not allowing money to infect Washington. A hard task but not impossible.
Unfortunately to achieve that this movement will need focus, organization and leadership, three things I don't see happening anytime in the near future.
I am going to keep my hopes up, and in the meantime do what I can do to change the world.
All it takes is One.
Indepat; you state : OWS needs to be apolitical
Now let's see, this is the definition of POLITICAL ...............................................................................................................
po·lit·i·cal (p -l t -k l). adj.
.................................................................................................................................................... Indepat - Are we speaking the same language, or have you redefined the word Political
Do you understand that this absolute direct contradiction to the OWS movement?
If you can't somehow justify changing the definitions of words we rely on for effective communication, why should anyone spend their time here with your thread?
Isn't communication important not only in our personal relationships but also to movements like this?
If start such a confusing unrelated idea, what's it's purpose?
Irrational conversations and arguments kind of end where they start,
Nowhere.
But, your free, it's your thread. I'm sure you can learn this way. Just try to come up to speed a little slower. Ideas are powerful when they resonant with the Truth, and you are also able to use these words effectively to communicate it so we all can know.
Good Luck!
Advice: Let this one go. It's fruitless.
Here's the entire definition. don't really see how your singular focus on my use of the word apolitical matters all that much. We need to reform government, and we shouldn't fall into the regular, tired pitfalls, of conservative vs. liberal, republican vs. democrat. Is that clear enough for you? does that make sense? Or are you that FN stupid.
But I have to tell you I'm not really interested in wasting time on a single word.
po·lit·i·cal /pəˈlɪtɪkəl/ Show Spelled[puh-lit-i-kuhl] Show IPAadjective 1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics: political writers. 2.of, pertaining to, or connected with a political party: a political campaign. 3.exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.: a political machine; a political boss. 4.of, pertaining to, or involving the state or its government: a political offense. 5.having a definite policy or system of government: a political community.
And, yes, the government is the key word.
Let me turn it around it may help.
Apolitical. So, what you are in effect saying is OWS should not concern themselves with anything to do with the affairs of government.
ANARCHY - Absence of any form of political authority
So, you propose Anarchy. Is this true?
(Are you not done yet? How can you feign rational thinking and continue?)
Look I'm not against you. You may learn from this and I hope you do. Your words just don't have a solid foundation. You opening premise is severely and fatally flawed.
Knowing every one is precious and good inside, you are trying to say something which I believe you haven't thought all the way through.
I'll fathom a guess that you completely fed up with the entire political system. So am I. Politics are for the most part a game of deceptions and appeals to the bad side of people. It sows divisions. It is nothing less than brutal and callous. Politics ruins many people's by creating useless wars. I could go on and on.
But, we have to be realistic, and I don't believe abolishing the party system or politicians would solve any problems. We would have to replace it or them with another form of representation. It wouldn't be any different. And no system would be even close to perfect. It's not possible, this is reality.
Thomas Jefferson had much to say on all this. Obviously, he must have been somewhat right or how could we have survived as Nation for all these centuries since?
This is nothing but politics. it's the elephant in the room : )
I have just one question for you. don't you have something better to do with your time?
Yes, Anarchy.
: ) : )
: )
Are you serious? Anarchy? Out of all the political/social structures in the world. Anarchy is by far the dumbest, hands down.
Your a troll, this the Apolitical thread, what are you thinking posting here.
I don't care what you do with your time. I just wonder what think your accomplishing here. But your a Troll, SO, I'm not interesting your trolling activities.
SEEEEE YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
If you read any of my posts what you'll notice is a common thread, that I wouyld like to see this thing succeed, but that I am not too hopeful, because it's being led by a million idiots, much like yourself.
I'm sorry, you guys are the biggest fools on earth. You HAVE to stand for something. If you don't, another group will and that group will accomplish their goals. Meanwhile you folks will just continue to piss/crap in the streets and just piss more and more people off. get over the "coexist" bs and stand for something.
So you are fine with the way Washington works? So you're fine with the fact that they have been purchased by narrow special interests and that all they really do now is work for them, and not what's in this countries best interest.
If that's what you think, then you're the fool.
Check who is funding you.
No one is funding me. I try and push my views here because I think getting the money out of Washington is an important issue, in fact the most important issue of this time.
So who is funding this? Please do tell.
It appears Geore Soros (Obama's puppet master ) is. Do you know what a useful idiots is?
Obama's puppet master? So you actually think only the Democrats bow to their contributors. They've both been purchased, all of them, our entire government.
By the way, what is Soros's motivation, goal? It would seem this movement, if it succeeded, would take away the very influence and power he enjoys today. Kind of retarded, and self defeatist, don't you think?
Soro's goal? Well scary if the movement actually caught on. Obama hasn't a prayer in the next election...UNLESS he could declare a state of emergency via OWS. I will garee that both sides have been purchased. But maybe you can see the "Useful Idiot" example. It has been proven theat George Soros via Moveon.org. Adwatch, Acorn etc has funded this OWS. These organizations Obama worked for.
That's way too conspiratorial for me. Trust me, it's not that sinister.
And Obama isn't even an American citizen anyway.
Always follow the money.
Yes, exactly, I follow the money and all of it leads to Washington, into the pockets of every single representative and government official we have. That's where the problem lies, not with Acorn. Damn get over Acorn, that sort of stuff and the other stuff your trying to push is crap meant to distract you from the real criminals, the ones who sell us out for special interest, our own government.
That's how the operate, they create boogie men all over the place and point them out and tell you their the problem, all while they rip us all off to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Here are three web sites that "follow" the money. All the way into each congressman's pocket.
Stop looking at Soros, and Acorn and all the rest of it, and start looking at our government, the entire thing.
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
this might interest you. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-the-nypd-police-commissioner-meet-with-george-soros-in-secret/
It doesn't. I already know there is a problem, and I'm hoping this movement can help fix it, although I'm starting to lose faith in that notion.
I am very conservative or shall I say more libertarian in my views than most. I own a small business. The problem I had with the OWS is the funding. There are many ideas we both would agree upon. I hate the corruption, Influence of world bankers, lobbying, and tax structure. Why can't I ever find a loop hole? One thing we can agree on is things need to change.
Yes, yes, yes. I understand that this thing was started by questionable entities, such as adbusters. But I just figured, with all this formless, leaderless, stuff, the people who originally started this now have little control over where it goes.
I would like to see it get organized and focus on the single issue of ridding the money and influence out of Washington. That's all I want. and if this thing goes elsewhere and becomes something else, or dies, then I'll stop.
I just hope it works for the goal of fixing Washington, although I have to admit, I have very little faith that this thing will achieve anything at all.
wow...George Soros BOUGHT our government via Obama. They go way back. Try to open your eyes.
Please, please, please pay attention. Our ENTIRE Government has been bought, by Soros and other like him. I've been saying that, I've even given you some web sites that show the money trail. Listen, if your not going to read what I write, then please don't respond because your just wasting my time.
But I'll ask one more time, if you believe Soros has purchased direct influence over our government, (which I actually believe and agree with you) then why would he start and fund a movement, aimed at stopping those types of activity. It would be like the richest tax specialist, trying to make the tax code so simple that it eliminates his job. Now why would he do that.
You can't say that Soros has purchased direct influence over the White house and now has started a movement meant to end this activity. Can you see how that doesn't make any sense?
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=189197 I agree they play both sides. Right now they are playing and have Obama as the puppet.
okay
I gave you one reason. The coming election where Obama is not faring too well and Soros is highly invested in him. But will concede that there might be other sinister reasons for this funding by him and his organizations.
The days on betting on a single individual are gone. These guys bet on both sides and win regardless of who wins. and if they lean towards a particular guy, and that guy loses they just purchase the next guy. Presidents come and go, these guys stick around forever.
Too late, man. It's over, Stick a fork in it or join the communist party, lol.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-wall-st-and-allies-rally-march-united-civil/
We are looking for "post political" solutions. When you analyze it, there is absolutely no need for politics in a functioning government. The revolutionary thinkers G Washington, T Jefferson, and others recognized the danger of politics to our democratic republic. Jefferson, along with T Paine, also recognized that one generation has no right to bind the next; Indeed, this was the gist of Paine's reply to Burke.
Don't think you can remove politics from human behavior, let alone out government. Even all those mentioned above, played the game and were political powerhouses.
Just get the money out and let them focus on real issues and real solutions without having to worry about what special interest they owe.
why not get people to run for office but under a new party?
While I like the idea of a 3rd party, until we change the rules of the game, it really doesn't matter who the players are. They have to play by the existing rules. Change them and everything changes, then I would like to see a third, moderate party.
I think we pretty much should stick to asking for two related items all honest folk regardless of ideology can agree on. But for many, the first without the second still leaves room for unfair practices to skew the playing field unfairly.
Corporate money out of politics by ensuring campaign contribution caps and an end to the backdoor to this aim created by the PAC system, as well as enacting measures to ensure transparency in corporate lobbying
And
Transparent elections -- no proprietary voting machines, either open source the code so both sides can keep an eye out for hanky panky and keep it fair, or gtfo. Either way, it's as essential to keeping corporate interests out of politics as anything else.
Yes, I agree completely. I wish we could stick to the basics and the root cause. Not sure that's going to happen with this movement.
I agree -Keep it simple -Get the money out of Washington -Politics should not be a career (limit the number of terms) -Accountability and Full Disclosure, we need to see how our money is really spent. None of these topics are partisan and need to be part of the solution. - If we are to be heard we have to give them some sort of consequences (we have this power) that will impact the lives of these government officials who have become corrupt because of the current laws that protect them.
I agree -Keep it simple -Get the money out of Washington -Politics should not be a career (limit the number of terms) -Accountability and Full Disclosure, we need to see how our money is really spent. None of these topics are partisan and need to be part of the solution. - If we are to be heard we have to give them some sort of consequences (we have this power) that will impact the lives of these government officials who have become corrupt because of the current laws that protect them.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm starting to wonder if this concept, this idea should become some sort of off shoot of the original Occupy movement. One that can still tap into the numbers and anger of the occupy group but that operates towards this singular goal.
Dear Occupy, I think if you keep doing what you are doing you will succeed-the system is starting to show cracks and everyone is talking about you, and they realize you aren't going anywhere.
It doesn't need to be apolitical; if it's smart however it will be non-partisan. You can't be self described as either 'radical' or 'revolutionary' and at the same time claim to represent 'the 99%'. There is a serious need for reforms in the US, not 'revolution'. The use of the term 'revolution' is incendiary and stupid and will ultimately alienate most people.
Incorrect, there are smart liberal ideas and smart conservative ideas. I just feel this isn't the place for them. Getting the money out of Washington is not Liberal or Conservative.
The words revolution may or may not alienate people, but Liberal views or conservative is sure to alienate at least 1/2 the population of the 99%.
sigh
You're agreeing with me but your too myopic too realize it: saying it shouldn't be nominally 'liberal' or 'conservative' is just another way of saying it shouldn't be partisan. However, 'getting the money out of Washington is still political. You don't seem to understand the difference between the terms apolitical and non-partisan.
I think that shoes on the other foot. First, I firmly believe that stopping the flow of money in Washington is apolitical. It is neither Liberal nor Conservative, Republican nor Democratic. I'm looking for a system change, a rule change.
I don't agree with you, because while you think this is a waste of time, I don't, and that's my point. Just because it's disorganized, decentralized, all over the place and possibly left leaning, doesn't mean we should just give up and go on with business as usual. I take the opposite approach that this is important and should be supported until it actually does devolve into something else.
I'm not myopic, we do not have the same opinion.
You are really confused. I never said I this is a waste of time; did you even bother to read what I wrote before disagreeing? Where did I complain about it being disorganized, decentralized,etc.? I don't know what post you're responding tp but you're addressing points I never raised.
You clearly do not understand the difference between partisan and apolitical. Again, the notion of stopping the flow of money in Washington is certainly a political issue; one which needn't be a partisan one however.
In the future, respond to what I actually say please.
hhhhhhhhhhh
Time to bring this one back up to the top
The purpose of the movement is to change politics as we know it; how can you stay away from politics and change politics at the same time? Some issues are agreed on/disagreed on by people on both sides of the political spectrum: for example people on the left and right are opposed to the wars, continued foreign "aid" around the globe, and civil liberty abuses. But you can find people on both the left and right that are for all of these as well. The important thing is that you, as a movement, need to figure out what YOU believe in. Both parties are truly corporatist parties, but there are non-corporatist counterparts on both the left and the right. However, if you believe in regulation, such as Glass Steigal, for wallstreet, you would be taking a progressive position: right wingers want no regulation of wall street. So whatever positions you take, they would be political. Otherwise, what is the point?
The purpose of the movement is not to change politics, it's to reform the system, so that politics can take place without being subverted.
Like removing steroids from baseball.
Ron Paul for President 2012
He will never get elected. The 1% won't give him enough money to win. And why would they, he doesn't present a good return on investment.
Hahaha, he has already made more money than all others in raising money, he has more than enough to stand up to the others, and he has the backing of the internet.
Now you're right about under the table money, but have faith.
He who raises the most money wins. And once elected is obligated to pay it back, ten fold.
Actually if you want statistics, 90% of people who spend more money on their campaign are more likely to win.
And if Ron Paul was elected, he would pay it back by doing what ever he can to make this a better country.
It's sad, he doesn't even want to be a president, he wanted to stay in congress. But he can't stand by anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncqm5ty-7dk&feature=related Watch it, learn something.
The problem with that is, lets say he made it, and he got elected, he'd still have to deal with the meat grinder that is our congress. He could some up with all the great ideas he wanted to, but they wouldn't pass anything that harmed the current system. They are the ones that write and rewrite the legislation that is ultimately voted on, and they would do what the always do, pass something that looks nice on the exterior but that is riddled with loop wholes rendering is ineffective.
Until we change the rules of the game in the congress, I don't think it matters who we elect.
I do agree that Paul does believe in this though, I just think one man, even if president can't do much about it. Except to veto everything, which would bring everything to a complete stand still.
Listen to his message, he can't change anything unless we the people help. People do have power.
What does "succeeding" mean, then?
Succeeding means putting forth a sustained, organized effort that finally results in removing or at lessening the influence of money over our entire political process.
This cannot happen so long as we sit here on this site talking about everything from the death of capitalism to going back to an agrarian society. To force real change you actually have to do something, not just talk about it, or read about it.
something got confused.. OWS should go to politics... because the point is to get OWS voice heard from within... threatening the establishment.
OWS has a voice, and it has a particular view... have you not read the list of demands?
yes... OWS msg would somehow get twisted to something else... but that s politics, as it is always compromising. that is how democracy works...
actually is it not already happening?
so even more so if we do not stand for something, we would fall for anything.
the first stage of the movement has won, we have raised awareness but the second stage is to fix the system. the fight is not over. we have to go all the way.
yes, one day OWS would be corrupted, too... but that is alright... because something else would take its place.
but the Idea itself would stand the test of time.
if we manage to fix the system, we would be marked in history, once upon a time, some movement propelled by the powerless 99% ....
The problem is it has no leaders, no organization, even those demands are just something an individual user came up with. With no leadership and no organization this thing cannot survive. It's doomed to fail.
mostly agree, but actually we need to dive into politics and create a nwe third party.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Third party only after enacting real change to the system.
its all got to happen at the same time. The third parties platform will be details on all of those changes. an article 5 convention is the other half.
That's your point of view and I won't say it's wrong. You may be right. I just have a different view.
I am in total agreement and I am quickly losing respect for this movement. There has been an over-aggressive pressure to accept Liberal ideas endorsed by Democrats. All politicians are to blame and if this movement moves to the left they no-longer represent the 99% and you can count me out.
Which is why it needs to get it's act together and quick. This thing needs leadership, focus. The initial cause is a good one, but because it's so free formed it's open to infection. I'd ask you to reconsider and try to influence others to think the same, rather than to give up on what just might be our one opportunity to force a real change in Washington.
Good, then march on Washington.
First we need leadership and organization, then we can march on Washington
The sooner, the better in order to dispel the troubling notion that #OWS is a partisan movement. #OWS should be disgusted with all elected officials, independent of party affiliation. They have sold us out. In fact, the politicians are kissing Wall Street ass in fundraisers and the halls of congress for political contributions as we speak. You don't see elected officials or candidates give full-throat endorsement of Wall Street in public since they do not want to piss off their benefactors. As usual, pay-to-play works best if kept quiet below the radar screen, lest the pain-in-ass masses protest about it.
Yes, exactly dead on, we see things the same. But we need leadership to step up, these notions were part of the original movement, they've only gotten lost in this sea of confusion.
Do you know who started this thing and how we can get in contact with them? They need to take control of this thing.
I don't have a clue and it appears most others don't either. That is another thing that make #OWS suspect to many. It doesn't help that #OWS has not listed a set of demands, which makes its intentions also suspect.
I posted the question and all answers seem to be leading to some organization, adbusters? in Canada? It also seems to be the case that there are no leaders, at all, or any type of organization. Without those two things this thing is doomed to fail. This really sucks. This is nothing but a big waste of time.
That may be true, but I will withhold judgment for a while. There are a hundreds of thousands of angry people out there who are completely upset with the status quo. That anger is evident in the growing protests around the nation and around the world. Unfocused energy is impressive but, lacking a message, it is ineffective. The organizers (whoever they are) say "we are our demands". That is nothing but a meaningless slogan. #OWS has proven it can organize mass protests, but it has yet to show it has a clear message, nor has it brought its demonstrations in massive numbers to the location where it counts ; i.e., Washington DC, which is the seat of power. Perhaps, my assessment is premature. Perhaps, this movement will channel its justified anger intelligently and state its demands for all to see at some point. Hopefully, if and when those demands are made public, they will be acceptable to the majority of protesters and hopefully the demands will be realistic and achievable. Time will tell.
I agree, completely with you, which is why I feel this is a great opportunity lost. If someone doesn't step up soon, and if this doesn't get organized soon it will die.
politics is part of the problem.
It amazes me when people talk about getting political when all politics has done so far has caused all this mess to begin with.
They don't have any solutions, they're only interested in protecting themselves.
Yes, in this case we must stay clear of that. But when you look at this forum and this movement, you can see that we are not staying clear of it, and it will kill thins thing.
I suggest that you at least have an agenda - http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr/ and if one can be found that clearly elaborates a problem and is apolitical or at least has the support from all of parties then that would be good.
The left, the right, and the libertarian, all take issue with the unethical practices of fractional reserve lending that provisions a select few within the financial institutions with disproportionate means of earned income that is based upon absolutely nothing but imagination and thin air - and those earnings are not simply chump change!!
The political differences may arise as how to disposition the difference between gross earnings and the allowable net earnings of banks after rectifying the improprieties of its self endowed special exception schema.
The right calls for privatized social security and it should accept it in part for these earnings.
The left could probably agree with privatized social security for these earnings.
Libertarians may not accept or reject this in principle.
Yes, but it needs to focus on the root problem, money in Washington and the influence it buys, and it needs to stay apolitical. It can be done.
stopping the flow of money. That's it, the other stuff you list are political solutions.
The campaign finance objective is not an issue that the public at large will focus on and insist that a candidate swear to enforce before gaining support from the voters to win.
The campaign finance goal does not justify an assertion that the public has been severely wronged, while the depravity of theft from fractional reserve lending elaborates and magnifies a clear and pervasive institution that prides itself on a special and privileged exception through which obvious and egregious disparities between social classes have been established.
Challenging the lack of ethics inherent within the fractional reserve system holds the entire system accountable and inspires the public by convincing them that others do in fact have a reason to adhere to their concerns!
Getting money out of politics is not supported by any majority since money knows how to make money.
The best that can be hoped is for open disclosure of political contributions.
The fact that the DoJ will not prosecute the criminal activities on Wall Street is concrete, real, and is rejected by both the left and right.
The right dismisses OWS and states that it does not have an agenda, but the right also disagrees with the ethical premises of fractional reserve lending and its ill gotten gains including a desire to hold them accountable, so ignoring the suggestion is probably not an intelligent move.
The money I'm talking about comes from that top 1%, and they are the ones that benefit, and for the most part they are apolitical, just look how they spread there money to both parties. The other 99% have been left out in the cold, and have been divided, by the 1% into two camps.
You should probably read about campaign finance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States
"At the federal level, the primary source of campaign funds is individuals; political action committees are a distant second. Contributions from both are limited, and direct contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously permitted state laws that prohibit corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads.[1]"
Yes, individuals that are part of groups though. Trust me, money is awash in Washington whether it's direct or in direct, the money gets there. Lobbying is just one way, but there are others.
I think you may be looking at it wrong, Instead of the party taking over the movement , the movement can take over the party. You may have more power than you realize.
Parties are meaningless. They only serve to divide and distract. They are tools of the 1%.
Do you think Roosevelt ( FDR) did anything good?
I'm not talking about the past. Today, the parties are meaningless. They both talk a good game, but neither comes close to working for the ideals they claim to believe in. They just use them to distract and divide us. They both work for the 1%. Show me a group of democrats that actually pass meaningful legislation to help the poor, and I'll show you a Republican admin that actually works for less spending and smaller government.
Actually I do agree that both parties have been unresponsive. I don't expect anything put pandering to the wealthy from the Rs, but the Ds have been about the same. There have, though, been instances when due to outside pressure,parties have responded. I've been around long enough to have seen it. The civil rights movement is a prime example.
Yes, I agree, but we need to stay unified, and we need to be in this for the long hall if this is going to work. I think if we start leaning one way or the other we run the risk of dividing the 99% and of opening the door to either party.
I do believe this can work, but we have to stay apolitical, or we run the risk of failure. We also need strong leadership and an organization.
Yes, the civil rights movement worked, but it had both those things, strong leadership and solid organization.
Yes,strong leadership, Which is yet to emerge in this movement, imo. What I'm saying is let them come to us, not us to them. If Dems do what needs to be done, I, personally wouldn't hold their party affiliation against them. I wouldn't rule out a third party large enough numbers can be achieved to be more than just a "spoiler'.
I still believe that they have all been purchased. You simply cannot get elected without raising millions of dollars. They've all been bought, Republicans and Democrats alike.
what about Kucinnich?
I believe for the most part he's genuine, but he still has to operate by their rules. I would say the same about Ron Paul, but look at the two of them, they've been marginalized by their respective parties and would never, ever be allowed to make it to a general election.
Still, I would have to say, they have taken money and therefor have had to pay someone back. No one invests money without wanting something in return.
Agreed.
The end of corporate government and banking is political.
A chance of succeeding at what ?
There is a single issue here, getting the money and the influence it buys out of Washington. Both parties are now essentially the same, they've both been purchased, they both have been compromised.
To succeed, we will need all 99% regardless of their ideology or political persuasion. And we have to keep both political parties at bay, because if they take over this thing then it's over.
You are correct 100% but their is nothing we can do about it ... Nothing short of armed rebellion and that won't happen ... We can protest are lives away and nothing will change ... We have a goverment run by a oligarchy that protends to be democracy. We even use democracy to bomb / regime change countries around the world that do not comply with our orders
I don't think so, the civil rights movement worked without armed conflict, so did the suffragan movement and a lot of other movements. They can succeed, but they need to be organized, focus, and sustained over a along period of time. This thing will take a long time. we need to be in it for the long haul.
Well we can hope but The problem we now face with oligarcy deceitful control is much different then both of your overt examples.
And it's because of this nonsense that if we don't find leadership soon, this thing is doomed.
ggggggg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
I tend to agree but lets remember that politics is the reason they get away with stealing our money. Change politics. The best way to win is to hit them where it hurts. Close your bank account.
Again, I have to disagree, the reason they get away with stealing our money, is because they pay our government to set up the rules to promote and allow for this. Stop, what only can be termed as million dollar bribes, and our government might actually regulate the banking industry.
I do like the closing of the bank account thing though.
Think about it. Of course you are right that the government needs to change their love of corporations and banks but we can hurt them NOW if we close accounts. I need you to help me spread that. Thank you.
Again, I do like the move. I've already done it myself. Left B of A, should have done it years ago.
How can we make it viral?
I think some are already working on this. I believe there is a date in November that a lot of people are suppose to do it at once.
I suggest posting it.
Awesome. Let's go. Please let me know when you find out. I already did it but imagine if we can mobilize a couple of million to close their bank accounts within a few days. The banks will take a huge hit and it will catapult OWS onto the top news for a long time. Money money money money money. That's all they know!
It might be the 8th of November. Or actually, I think it's the date used in that movie, The "something of November, when the guy with the mask blows up parliament. Was it the 5th of November?
No goverment party gives a shit about you. Down the road when gaining more ground they will pretend they care. The Tea party honestly no longer holds power. The Rebublicans will lead you to believe so. the only way to take actions against criminals is having a separate party period. America has been screwed science 1964 and I think people are at their wits end. Washington is only going to protect big banks and corporations. The people are already slaves, and the ones that are nit soon will be as the government needs to default soon and begin a new world currency. Get through your head and take it to the next level. Pressure by the masses to date have not change the political landscape.
Obviously. Yes, tea party becoming an extension of Republican party. I'm now convinced that this will become an extension of the democratic party.
what a waste of time, what an opportunity lost.
By the way, I have no idea is your ranting against me, but I happen to agree, not sure how you might have thought I was saying something else.
Yup! What a waste of time, what an opportunity lost. Well worded. You are on the right track in my view. Only government can change these laws, rules, and corruption. No political party will ever change this. Obama had his chance, and either he lied or as caved into the system, he has failed. There thousands of Americans that are very well educated to run for a post in government. Just need 20 things to promise for change. Then after two years, take a census what the people want changed. Other comments here mentioned the parties and media will try to destroy the movement. They will infiltrate and have bad apples misrepresent you. Just plow with these 20 or what ever # promises and don't sway, and forget the rhetoric from others. Just keep it simple. The movement needs to prove they are in control, like strikes, and protests. Learn how media works and use these tactics in a new fresh way. Remember Many businesses will support the 99% as really they are not far behind you. It's the Elite you are after. There will always be small business with inflated egos, wannabes, hard-liners that won't agree with you, and that's fair, that's freedom. I don't believe I am ranting against you, perhaps with you :). You have a very important post and needs to be in the works.
Looks like we are on the same page. Yes, I had hoped he was actually and outsider that could exact true reform. Just didn't happen.
Democrats Shamefully support Occupy Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8UtYQ2zKmk
Don't Let Soros Hijack Occupy Wall Street: Webster Tarpley Reports 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t901d4AiaFA
George Soros backs anti-Wall Street protests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUHxiBxSlWM
http://www.euronews.net/ Billionaire financier George Soros says he understands anti-bank protests that started in New York and have spread across the United States.
Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros' Tides, Code Pink and Michael Moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_IPn2QIlM
Yes, just like the Tea Party is becoming just another part of the Republican, conservative machine, OWS will just become an extension of the Democrats.
Way to go OWS, with your formless, leaderless, bull shit. Like I warned when I first got on this thing. stay that way, get liberal, and you'll lose everything.
El Posto
Fuck both parties
Yes, exactly.
Agreed. Completely. The D and R only serve to divide and keep us from real solutions. We're taught by the media to revel in conflict and drama, in political theater, while the ruling class works behind the scenes to rob us all blind. It's a fucking scam. Our system is like a typical hollywood movie, complete with "good" and "bad" guys, explosions, clichéd sound bites and utter lack of creativity. Personally, I'm scrapping the labels of conservative, liberal, republican and democrat. There are only ideas, no more over-arching sets ideologies that define millions of people.
Yes, yes, yes, the two party system now only serves to distract and divide, to keep us looking at each other, blaming each other instead of them. We must not go down that road or we will just end up as another tool of mass distraction.
We need to push this notion, because this thing is in danger of being taken over by the political system. Saw a poll last night that 30% of Americans agree with this and 30% do not, and %40 are on the fence. Sounds like this thing is already starting to divide down part lines. If that happens this thing is done.
There’s a lot of talk about OccupyWallSt launching a third political party…
I agree with the sentiments… but can we not take a step further ?…
Why do we want a Party so to speak… Why become the same type of institution that has caused the mess?
Why not organize “Independence” from any party affiliation?…. In the 60′s the original meaning of the word “groupie” was “someone who would blindly follow their leaders”…
The media hated this.. and changed the definition to “someone who followed rock bands”….
But we all knew the truth…
how about “The 99% Political Party Independence Movement” ….
and organize everyone signing on to stand on their own… elect & support on their own… as an individual… supporting no party… that would be much more in allignment with the OccupyWallSt movement… no ?
You don't have to form that party, it already exists and it is where your politicians spend most of their money. It's called the swing-voter.
Don't like the idea of a third party just yet. Again, I think this thing needs to stay out of politics. Eventually though, once some real change has taken place, I think a third party is a good idea.