Forum Post: The media is framing this as a leftist, Democratic movement
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 3:39 p.m. EST by alwayzabull
(228)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is unacceptable!
the only thing that matters right now is CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, unless you get the big money out of politics, no change whatsoever will occur, this should be the focus of the protests, we need to have honest politicians that work for the public before any thing else can get done, campaign finance reform (ending corporate personhood, kicking the lobbyists out of the Washington) is the perfect starting point. It really is a no brainer that this should be the one thing we can all agree on. Because unless we do this, all those other demands that people have will never be addressed, not in a millions years.
I agree. Great point.
College, you don't need the media to spout dribble, but I am thinking you watch Fox News.
I am independent, have been for a while, simply because government does not work for us, it works for the 1 percent. Don't call this movement anything but what it is, American people fed up with not having any representation in Government, and for the financial institutions for bringing down the world economy to get rich. Either you are for or against, but don't label, and don't get involved if you are against.
I agree with you.
just remember this big fact: reality is leftist. But we are all the 99% (funny math).
That is puppet-talk.
You all are being set up by the white house... they will make you puppets for his re-election. dont let them hijack the message!
Of course it is leftist. What's the point in pretending it isn't? I've spoken with literally hundreds of people in this forum and 90% of you are leftist. Why are people so ashamed of this fact. I mean I can understand it, but I don't know why you all try to hide your stripes? I can understand being ashamed by your ignorance, but at least get on board with the program. The unions will be very disappointed to find out you are hiding your beliefs.
Thank you. Believe you me.. the Democratic party is going to end up latching onto this movement to use it as a platform for reelection next year. Be wary.
Increase legitimacy.. CLEARLY DEFINE YOUR DEMANDS!!
RIGHT ON GIRL!! The Democrats are going to hijack this movement as a way to reenforce their own agenda. Anyone within this movement who is seeking an allegiance with the Democrats, is missing the point.
Absolutely agree, We cannot allow a Democrat hijack!
I have no idea what saying Amen does in this thread but: AMEN This isn't a party issue, its an American People issue!!
Boots
If it is leftest to want to reduce the power of wealthiest few over our political system If it is leftest to want the wealthiest to pay there fair share If it is leftest to want to take back our government and make it work for us then I am a leftest.
The literature at the table is what the person who brought that literature put out.
Don't get co-opted, you will end up just as irrelevant as the current Tea Party. Accept that you are the leaders of this movement, and you make it what it is. DOn't accept it as right or left, accept it as what you and your local friends decide it should be. Don't listen to the media, don't listen to the self-defined 'leaders'. They will take you down a path you don't want to go, and before long you will ask "what the heck am I doing here?"
Well said! This is most important.
So what part of a redestribution-centric, union-backed protest isn't leftist?
It's not union-backed, it's union supported. And it's anti corporate-welfare.
I agree with being anti-corporate welfare. But we have to be anti union welfare too. You people bitch about a bank getting TARP funds, and then paying those funds back. But you don't bitch about bailout/stimulus funds going to pay union members, none of which will be paid back.
It's such a small-scale with unions... why focus on that? Corporations control the entire world market and politics. Isn't that more worthy of our efforts?
Hundreds of billions is small scale? That's how much both the banks and the union members got. Only the banks have paid almost all of the TARP funds back.
But actually, I agree with doing away with all subsidies to business. You agree with doing away with all of them?
Eh, I'm not sure. Subsidies would be much more tolerable if there was less corruption...
Without subsidies, there would be no corrupted subsidies. My point is, governments throughout history have the worst record of picking winners and losers. And that is exactly what the granting of subsidies is all about. I challenge you to join me in wanting to end every subsidy.
If it brings more independents to Occupy, I'll go along with that. Subsidies for business are not at all a sacred cow to most of us here.
The is exactly what I am freaking saying. But I also said ALL subsidies. And no, I my motive is NOT to bring more of anybody to "Occupy". If people want to join you, then they may. But you won't change anything. You won't get anything done. You will only increase costs of an already burdened system. I'm tired of wiping the noses of the likes of you.
I have my own motives. I don't really care about subsidies or unions, as I think there are bigger problems out there. I care about the corrupting power of money in our political system, because that is what stands in the way of progress of ANY kind. You don't know me, and you have never wiped my nose.
Originally you said "And it's anti corporate-welfare", to describe OWS. So, I proposed doing away with ALL subsidies. I took the queue from you. Then you waffled when I brought up union subsidies. So, you cared about that at the beginning, but now you don't care about the corrupting effect of subsidies? Only the "corrupting power of money in our political system?"
I was making a generalization about OWS. That's not MY main objective. I'm fine with doing away with subsidies, because I agree with you that they are often a corrupting influence. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. If you want to lump subsidies in with my statement about money in politics, fine. I guess they do qualify. This whole conversation is beside the point, though. Have a good night.
Of course they are, they are the mouthpieces of the people we are protesting. It is in their self-interest to make us look like fools, loons, and degenerates. If people still looked to the media for the truth I might be worried. I am not.
" If people still looked to the media for the truth I might be worried. I am not."
That is really funny! LOL
They are trying to co-opt it just like they did the Tea Party.
Trot out the old divide-and-conquer routine. Play the right-left theme songs, and let the idiots duke it out.
The people in the movement need to let the media know it is non-partisan and open to everyone who wants change.
We should tell the media nothing because they are illegimate, but we should tell everyone we know.
Please read about Democratic Capitalism:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/708507790/protest-to-prosperity-occupy-wall-street-pamphlet http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/
the people want to live in a democracy
Democracies always lead to the abuse of the minority. Majority rules means just what it says. This country was formed as a Republic to keep the minority from being abused by the majority. Democracy may sound good, it does nothing for any minority other than hurt them. Every democracy in history failed for exactly that reason.
though I can see some logic in Democracies being dangerous to minorities, I can't think of any examples
The Bill of Rights protects minorities not the republic
What? The definition of a Republic is that it is a system based on a set of laws, not majorities that rule. The Bill of Rights is a part of our Constitution, which is our original and base document of our systems of laws. So, therefore, the Republic, which is the Bill of Rights, protects minorities. The Bill of Rights and our "Republic" are interchangeable. And let's see........democracy was practiced quite famously by the ancient Greeks. How did that work out for them?
And for Venice, failure...
A republics is a group that votes on government action each members represents a group of people in the nation
I don't want to live in a democracy! I want to live in a free Republic! There is a huge difference! Please do not speak for "the people"!
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over what to have for lunch; liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin
a democratic republic where every vote is counted by public documentation
Well said, anima....and Ben
It's not just the media that is framing it this way. The people inside the movement are framing it that way. This site is framing it that way. This movement is being co-opted with or without the media's help. The Union endorsements don't help. This movement will not be able to get any support from anybody on the right - and independents (like me) will be a tough sell seeing and knowing what we see and know just from this site alone.
OK. So there is a grassroots conservative Tea Party and a liberal Occupy WallStreet movement? If this is accurate, where does this leave the independents? Where is our voice in this charade?
You can join me for the "53 versus 47 Occupy My BarBQue" party at my house. The pool is heated. :)
We independents have no voice in either movement because both have been co-opted. So I say we give them time for this one to fizzle out just as the TEA Party did - then the real work can commence to fix the problems! 53-47 UNITE!.
This goes to show that the independents are the only folks on this board with a sense of humor. ; ) I'm in Kalifornia, a bit far some SC, so a bbq party is a bit out of the question. Who are you leaning toward voting for in 2012?
I am voting for me. I would have voted for me in 2008, but I wasn't 35 yet. I fully eligible to run now. :) Look for me on the independent ticket in 2012.
In all seriousness - nobody has truly proven that they are worthy of my vote in 2012. To give you an idea of how I lean politically, I voted for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 because the candidate I supported then was not on the ballot and in SC, you can't write in a name on a national ballot.
I think the libertarian/constitutional movement is finally catching on in this country. Ron Paul's leanings are becoming less the view of the minority. What do you think of the new candidate Gary Johnson?
My entire assessment of support has to look at the candidate as a whole (which includes electability). I like a great deal of what Gary Johnson says -- but he is truly unelectable - especially if he continues to push for the Republican nod. He, just like Cain and Paul, all need to step out of the establishment and fight for truly independent voters sooner rather than later. There are alsoa few "left leaning" people I would give further scrutiny to if they ever announced... but I will leave politics alone. I wouldn't want the lefties on here to berate me for ever considering anybody who would dare put a (R) behind their name. Oh yeah, I did vote for Bob Conley (D) to run against Lindsey Graham (R) in SC 2008 for Senate... I'm not a party line voter.
The media is just a pawn in the game of the corporate takeover of the world.
The media is unacceptable - that's why I ignore them.