Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The only rational issue this movement should support as of now is...

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 2:37 p.m. EST by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

THE issue.

We all care about a lot of important issues but all of them tie back to the issue of corporate money and influence corrupting our government.

If we want this movement to grow into something larger than what it is now, we have to focus on the singular issue that gets wide support from people who don't traditionally support leftist causes.

We will never gain the support of those who currently hold right wing beliefs on things like climate change legislation, labor reform, and the illegal foreign wars IF we include those issues as part of the central message of our campaign. People already have their mind made up on those polarizing issues and if we spend our time trying to CHANGE people's minds, we will fail because we can't change their minds, they will only change their minds if they come to their own conclusions.

We CAN gain their support on that ONE issue though. Getting corporate money out of politics is not a fringe concept, there are a LOT of people behind us on this.

The best part? Getting corporate money out of politics would be a huge indirect victory to all those other important issues because corporate power is exactly what funds the climate change denial industry, the military industrial complex, and everything else. Corporate money and power prevents things from changing and fools people into supporting things that are harmful to them.

Getting corporate money and influence out of politics is the one issue that crosses party lines while indirectly taking the first step in fighting for the other causes we care about.

Anything more will not break the left/right stalemate that exists. Anything less will not bring meaningful change.

45 Comments

45 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by grif713 (10) 2 years ago

Getting the corporate money out would make big changes, but, there are two other things that go hand-in-hand with that. One, all the current legislators who "owe" big business need to go. You can tell who they are, look for those with a net worth over $500K. Yes, that's most of Congress, and nearly the entire Senate. Second, to keep that from happening again, you have to remove the legislators ability to "insider trade" on stocks. Just because the business itself isn't approaching the Senator, doesn't mean the Senator doesn't have a stake in what that business is selling. If that Senator has stock in that tool manufacturer and he/she is buying hammers for the government, you can bet those hammers are going to cost more than what anyone else in this country would dream of paying!
Yes, it does influence climate change too, you think Senator Gotrox wants his coal-power stock to drop? Certainly not, so any bill requiring reduction in coal emissions gets killed by him/her. This is why the incumbents need to be removed - break the "good old boy" network of favors and backscratching so that real governing returns.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I completely agree with the insider trading in congress. It has too go if congress is to gain any credibility. I think government can serve its people if it has the right incentives.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I like OWS in that it doesn't focus on a single issue - its a broad-based appeal to human decency, common sense, and rationality. That's frustrating the crap out of them because they can't nail it down, pin it place, so they can't kill it. Why do you think they're so upset that it won't commit to a more typical agenda? They can't fight it, that's why. The accusation that they don't understand it, that's all they have.

Once you get into single-issue politics, that's all you are, a single-issue thing. It's easier for them to push that off to the side because they can nail it down and come up with all kinds of obfuscations and counterarguments and just tie it up, forever. Maybe do a few token reforms and say "oh look it's fixed" and 90% of the support just goes back to sleep.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I don't believe any meaningful change will come about being a mass plurality of views. I'm fine people expressing their own views, it's liberating(as I found out joining this movement) and that is one way the movement is great.

But we must be realistic. If we are ever to expect OUR government to enact meaningful change over the long term the undue influence money has in government must be addressed. As of now the government is not OURS. It is under the influence of what some may call the fourth branch of government, the 'special interest.'

Unless we purge the special interest from politics then all of the other issues from bank reform to health care have NO chance of being addressed with the public interest in mind.

Government is the tool by which the special interest have assumed and keep their power and it is the way we must deprive them of it.

As I look to the future of this movement this seems like the only rational approach.

As long as we protest Wall Street and others who are unaccountable to us the politicians have something to hide behind. They are more than happy that our collective anger is not directed on them. If it were they might actually have to change something!

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

You want realistic. OK. Here is something realistic for you. OWS is not the end-all be-all of what we can do. These single-issue things can occur without OWS ever changing its nature. They happen separately and they happen as what they are, single-issue fights. They can plug into OWS and tap into the power of the network, without the network ever becoming any one of them. No decisive battle can ever be fought against the network, there is no single issue on which it can be crushed because it does not officially embrace any of them.

Call it guerrilla politics. It is the way forward. Single issue politics and centralized models of organization have been tried so many times before, for years and years, and it just doesn't work. This is new, and it's doing something different. Something we've never seen before. Something that maybe has a chance of making a difference in a way the old methods never did. I've watched dozens of battles over issues like this lost before, over many decades, and I can tell you straight up that the way we used to organize simply didn't work. This new generation, it's organizing in a completely different way. The law of nature is to adapt or die, and not keep repeating old patterns that don't work.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I agree to the extent that the movement doesn't NEED to be a one issue movement but it should act much in the way the military does. It should set forth objectives and targets that will ensure true victory.

Centralized movements have worked and have not worked. By centralized I mean the movement has figures who inspire and engage the public. Not someone who makes decisions for the whole movement. It is the masses who ARE the movement.

The only movement even close to Occupy, as far as I know, was the 1990 WTO protests. It didn't really work. Abroad we have Spain's well mannered Indignants who are favorable among Spainards(80% approve). They have had some victories but I cant say much else on the topic(good article on it: http://www.economist.com/node/18959259) and then we have the Egyptians in Tahrir square. Yes they are decentralized but they seem to have the message pretty unified. We should take note of these movements as they were the inspiration for OWS.

From what you say in your second paragraph you can't claim to know how the movement will get what it wants. I won't claim to know either but will only look at the facts and try to predict how this movement can enact meaningful change. So far it hasn't done anything to satisfy demands and I have no reason to believe it will in the near future.

This movement has been inspiring and liberating but it doesn't seem to be much more at the moment.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I agree to the extent that the movement doesn't NEED to be a one issue movement but it should act much in the way the military does. It should set forth objectives and targets that will ensure true victory.

If you want a military analogy. On the eve of WW2, Britain had the most advanced air defence system in the world. This was not only because of certain technological factors (radar) but also because of how it was organized. Most air defence at this time had centralized command and control, if you knocked it out, the whole system went down. What Britain did was create a decentralized network of control, whereby there was no one target that could be hit which would paralyze the network.

I don't claim to know whether it will be succesful or not, I just know, that what's been done before hasn't worked. And never have I seen this level of interest in my adult lifetime (the 60s maybe but I wasn't really old enough to understand). We didn't have groups from every quarter, left right you name it, desperate to co-opt the anti-WTO movement, like what is happening here. Whatever OWS has is being regarded as a desirable political commodity. That tells me something. So I don't really agree with your last statement. Just because instant gratification isn't being achieved, doesn't mean there isn't something less tangible going on.

[-] 1 points by jdavis (1) 2 years ago

The both of you (edgewaters, amanita76) have merit to your posts. Edgewater, you said "broad-based appeal to human decency, common sense, and rationality. That's frustrating the crap out of them because they can't nail it down, pin it place, so they can't kill it." I agree here, its surviving because of these qualities. However i don't know if it can attain the respect it needs to make any changes from the current system. Here I agree with amanita76, but I dislike how she(he?) Phrases it making it sound absolute, like this is the only option: "If we want this movement to grow into something larger than what it is now, we have to focus on the singular issue that gets wide support from people." Eventually there needs to be a mass concensus of all Occupyers that says "yes we don't have a leader, and we disagree on how exactly we want our demands met, but this one issue is something we all agree on and it is the first step to making lasting effective change."

With so many people and opinions involved I think that compromise is the way to go. It IS possible to stay amorphous and fluid in structure while supporting one common goal. If that means prioritizing our demands, and attacking one at a time over a periodof months or years, so be it. These are some radical changes that I don't think can happen in one go. I think we are going to have to cycle one goal at a time. But we can't lose. That's for damn sure.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

The both of you (edgewaters, amanita76) have merit to your posts.

Make that a trifecta. This is a good discussion. If only the Internet were like this most of the time!

[-] 2 points by Pingry (6) 2 years ago

Reject austerity!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What you say has merit - yet I would point out that the right/left divide will, in time, melt away beneath the heat of the noon time glare.

Texass even now swelters beneath a smog of charred ruins - the effects of climate change.

I take great pleasure in rubbing salt in the wounds of climate change deniers - and great sorrow at the suffering of the innocent.

I will spare you those thoughts which blush bright crimson in my darkest hours.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

We have the same problem here in Southern New Mexico (that is in the USA, not Mexico by the way). We have for many, many years called it El Nino and his sister El Nina and have learned to live with it, although it is very rough at times.

You may call it by different names to justify rubbing salt in our wounds but , we really don't feel the pain any more. You are wasting good salt.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

If you are saying that we should somehow make the crooked politicians in washington get the money out of politics, it'll never happen, they like it that way. So, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get these politicians out of our politics once and for all and put people into office to make a fresh start. The politicians currently in Washington are incompetent and incapable of doing anything, it's time for them to go. OWS need to form a political party and run their own candidates.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I agree 100%, but please, let's get ALL money out of politics! See http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/

Besides returning POLITICAL power to the People, I ALSO want the People to exercise their CONSUMER power.

I compiled some shopping guidelines we developed under a forum post here and hosted them at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where they are widely accessible and can be shared via social networks. Please read the guidelines and, if you agree, spread the http://bit.ly/DoYourBit link as far and wide as possivle using e-mail, twitter, facebook, etc. We need a LOT of people on board if we are to have an impact.

Note there are no ads at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit, and I do not receive any reward other than the satisfaction of helping Americans use their economic power to change America.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Who gave you the special keys to rationality?

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

No one if you can disprove my reasoning.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Arrogance is not especially a very successful way to get one's point across in any democratic culture, much less the occupy movement. Just arguing that you are smarter than everyone else is unlikely to win many people over or win a substantial number of people to your ideas no matter how good they might be.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I'm not claiming I am smarter than anyone. I just don't like when people question the validity of my post as a matter of principle but won't agree or disagree whether or not my view is indeed a rational approach.

I just want to debate. The ultimate test of reason will be left to the GA. Not the forum.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Ego_Centered_Front_Burnerism-_Whats_wrong_with_putting_your_pet_issue_to_the_front_of_the_priority_list.

back up, and stop trying to make our priorities for us. stop telling us what to do, and stop trying to myopically put your pet issue ahead of everyone elses.

further more, your contention that we can't change minds is self defeating, and more importantly, those issues are vital. if we don't confront climate change, everyone on this planet dies as a result. for instance.

your claims that anything other than doing it your way won't work are wrong, are based on false assumptions, and attempt to hold the movement hostage to your own idea of how things should go.

Getting money out of politics is a great thing to put energy into, but its not going to be the focus issue or the one and only thing; so stop trying to control and manipulate us.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

Listen, ultimately I see this movements message reaching the halls of congress. This has happened in Spain during the demonstrations of the Indignants and finally Egypt is going to get its own truly representative government so their voices will be heard.

Our representative democracy is broken. If this were a direct democracy this would be a hell of a lot easier.
Never the less this issue of money in politics has gained the interest of at least one person in congress: http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672 http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

While I agree no one persons concern trumps another this is by no means some pet issue that I will personally benefit from. I want to see global warming, as it is rightly called, taken care of too. But do you honestly think meaningful reform will come through a congress that has business interests in mind? A congress that can only think of the next election cycle? A congress that can barely keep the government running for a few months? A congress that functions like they are driving a car using the rear view mirror?

Henry David Thoreau wrote, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Ask yourself, what are you hacking at?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

As long as we put it that way, the root is corporate oligarchy, and that hinges on mass ignorance without a plan B. So we have to end the mass ignorance and invest in mutual co-education, and come up with a plan B. Getting money out of politics can't and won't happen until we get to those roots, you know its a funny thing, i think you have a fine metaphor here, but are you hacking at the main root or at a peripheral root?

I think its obvious that this is a big and central issue. I also think its obvious that other issues have to be prioritized ahead of it, or theres not enough leverage to make a dent. Hacking at a peripheral root with a safety pin... won't get us there. We have to create tools large enough to do this job, and until we do that, your core issue no matter how crucial is still too large to be tackled.

From the other conversation;

"campaign finance reform is crucial. So is the creation of meaningful direct democracy. You speak to a chain of causes and effects and the problem of all problems being bottle necked inside of this one issue. I would say that this is even more true actually of the need to form a new third political party, and to delineate a complete platform for that party. Campaign finance reform does not solve the problem of having a duopoly, it does not solve the problem of all the other assorted issues, Its certainly a core issue amongst others, but if i had one single request rather than demand to make of the rest of the 99 percent, it would be that we all of us get back to the wiki and have an information centered and science centered paradigm shift, without which campaign finance reform would still only get us two parties of oligarchs who are morbidly crooked.

In terms of priorities due to cause and effect relationships, I think I could even make the case that its probably true that campaign finance reform will prove to be impossible to obtain until the information end of the paradigm shift is addressed. How are we going to leverage protesting in the streets for campaign finance reform? How do you beg devils and demons to be kind and do whats right? They have all the power. They have a giant rigged con scam of left versus right which 90 percent of the population buys into.

So what do we do? Elect another batch of dems or republicans on their lick and promise that these oligarchs will be different and spend 4 more years reality testing why thats just more of the same? HOW are we going to make campaign finance reform happen? The core utility every one seems to miss here is that we have to throw all the bums out. Campaign FINANCE reform is one end of a larger batch of issues which include campaign LEGAL reform, campaign MEDIA reform, Electoral reform (your vote is still being bought and sold on the open black market...) And ETC.

What about ranked voting? Actual Voting reform? What about direct representation? Lobbies?

All of these issues hinge upon us realizing that the people we have in office now are simply evil people, we can't imagine that we can ask them to do good and that they simply will. We can only remove them from power, and so that means that forming a 99 percent party and working out its political platform must meaningfully precede and prioritize ahead of campaign finance. "

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

You want to get corporate $$ out of politics, then stop taxing corporations as people. That is the singular reason they have the right to participate in the process .I'm sure you can find some next tax on those wealthy 1%, like a tax on tea....

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

Not only do I want corporate money out of politics but I want Union money out too. In fact I wouldn't mind all money out of politics or at the least 100$ maximum donations.

The day politicians get into office they need to be getting money for the next reelection! And what better way to get this but to pander to corporations. 80% of political contributions come from out of a congressmans state. 70%-30% of a politicians time is spent just getting reelected! This is no way for congress to run. I say we publicly fund elections, enact shorter term limits, and vote out the incumbents.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

Agreed on almost all accounts! However, what do we do when 50,000 people want to run for president? Give them each a few million dollars to state their case? Term limits sounds good but has the ability to encourage increased power behind the scenes from puppet masters. We should also eliminate all ear-marks!

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

No, look at other countries like Norway who fund their elections solely with public funding. You need an enormous amount of signatures to get funding along with many other stipulations. Here is a good start:http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/norway/40529

I agree with the earmarks.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

I'm certainly ignorant of effective public election methodologies. Thanks for the information! Also, have a great holiday!

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I said the exact same thing when I heard someone on this forum talk about publicly funded elections. The nordic countries are doing something right.

You have a good holiday too.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Why do not you want to create a party? This is the only real way for win. If you are surprised at my question, I will even more surprised by your surprise.

Yesterday wrote a post with a specific call. http://occupywallst.org/forum/four-questions/ No answers.

[-] 1 points by bluedoghunter (3) 2 years ago

"we have to focus on the singular issue that gets wide support from people who don't traditionally support leftist causes"

That's rather discrimintory of you to label people like that, don't you think?

"People already have their mind made up on those polarizing issues and if we spend our time trying to CHANGE people's minds"

Maybe you're views are not entirely right? Have you EVER tried to view your own beliefs objectively? I doubt it.

"The best part? Getting corporate money out of politics would be a huge indirect victory to all those other important issues because corporate power is exactly what funds the climate change denial industry, the military industrial complex, and everything else. "

Corporation represent people. If you are going to tell me that they don't, tell me where you are drawing the line between small-to-medium sized business, and medium-to-large sized businesses. Most corporations are publically held companies, which is the purest form of democracy. A company can be owned publically. Do I need to repeat that? Corporations also represent markets, jobs, and a significant peice of this country's economy. If you try to tell me that corporations do not have rights, then I say to you...you are NOT an American.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

"That's rather discrimintory of you to label people like that, don't you think?"

No. Im just trying to show that we as Americans need to get behind issues that both the left and right can agree on.

"Maybe you're views are not entirely right? Have you EVER tried to view your own beliefs objectively? I doubt it."

To the best of my knowledge my views are the truth and I stick by them. I don't view life through the lens of the mainstream media or talking heads which are in large part subjective in nature. People are more inclined to believe Fox News and MSNBC. You cant beat propaganda.

And to your last point, the only PEOPLE politicians should care about are the PEOPLE who voted them into office. Since when does a corporation cast a vote? They can't. Only individuals can. I have no problem with corporations being publicly owned but has that solved this countries problems? By the way WE THE PEOPLE represent markets, jobs, and the economy just as much as the corporations. The only rights I'd like to see the corporations without are those rights which enable them to corrupt our political system which is supposed to serve the public interest and not corporate profits and power.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 2 years ago

So far the only thing on here that might be worth listening to...STICK TO AN ISSUE...whether I agree with what you stand for or disagree there has to be an issue not a thousand of them. This movement is and WAS(who knows now what it stands for) an issue on one matter. You are close I mean its not really coporate money in politics because thats what politics was(from revolutionary days till now) based on and will always be,thats just a term they use to support the issue its called: egtrra/jgtrra(thats the abbreviations its known by) and YES THATS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE of this movement.Problem is ALMOST none of the "movers,"voicers" of this movement even knows what it means. Do you? ( I hope so and I do not mean thats as an insult) this is the root of this OWS movement. I have plenty of issues I feel should be addressed here in america and worldwide,but,piggybacking off of OWS only confuses theri issue and mine. That what the public is now seeing

[-] 1 points by ABE72 (4) 2 years ago

what about ending the fed and going back to a gold standard and requiring public employees like police and government be accountable to the people that elected them and if they dont do they're job they should be removed they are public employees which means we pay them and they work for us just like cities and states are public properties and we shouldnt be removed or hurt if we protest on public properties we pay for! and finally when the people vote for something no government branch (once again public employees) shall be able to undermine or send to a supreme court to be overturned 7 judges cant make decisions for us on things that have already been voted on nor any publicly elected officials should have any right to vetoe the peoples rights or votes.no amendments shall be made to our constitution or bill of rights without vote by all Americans. get us out of NAFTA and the U.N. immediately and all infringements of our rights stop here now.we should not have to petition or gain a permit to address our grievances to protest is instrumental to a healthy country. one more is not allowing anybody in our government to start a war at all without our vote the peoples vote!

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

All of what you say sounds good but you completely missed my point. If government isn't working in the people's interest then none of what you say will ever be addressed.

Politicians are more concerned with appealing to their wealthy donors while we are given the choice of the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right. In almost all cases corporations donate to each party equally.

I take it you are voting for Ron Lawl with views like yours lol. So am I : )

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

We have inflated out currency though borrowing exactly how much??

Now equate that to the amount of gold that we could accumulate to back that currency up. We better start panning, digging, and mining.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Not just corporate money, get all money out of politics.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I agree. The only favors politicians owe are to the people who voted them in, not corporations who cant even cast a vote.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Getting corporate money out of politics is not going to change the power that corporate media has over politics. Watch what they do to any candidate who strays outside the boundaries of sanctioned dissent. Ron Lawl, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, etc.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Ron Who?

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

That's quite amazing. There was a time when modifying the content of an online participant without consent was considered a signal offense. I of course meant this man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

The corporate media has control of people's minds. They have control of politics indirectly through these minds.

As much as I despise corporate media it would be hard to stop them from marginalizing certain views. You can't really do so without infringing on freedom of speech. Independent media has always been a great balance to power. Thats my 2 cents.

Now just dont come here to criticize! What is your solution?

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I'm actually carrying out my solution by calling attention to the most important facts and issues. I don't reach too many people, but if I can get ten new people to get involved in spreading the work about 9/11 and related topics, and they do the same, so on and so forth, the necessary changes will take place.

I have been active in handing out flyers, posting the results of my research (much of which has been lawyered off the Internet), contacting legislators, etc.

Regarding the "alternative media", much of it - Huffington Post, Democracy Now, etc.," is controlled opposition. The Internet is having a profound effect on getting passed the MSM and pesudo-alternative media.

The hard work is no longer mine. That falls to the people who know something is wrong, but still don't understand the forces they are up against. They need to take the time and make the effort to inform themselves and discern fact from fiction. It doesn’t take a brilliant mind, just an honest mind.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

Glad you are engaging the public and politicians.

Your idea of controlled opposition is interesting but is it supported by facts?

I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea of the forces I'm up against however I know that there ARE forces. And its those forces that you don't know about which are the most effective in keeping their power and position. However it is also because of this that people place their anger on enemies that really don't control anything.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Neither Democracy Now, nor the Huffington Post will cover the 9/11 Truth movement, nor will they carry editorial content about it. They might have had a flimsy argument for such policies in the past, but with the growth of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as all of the other 9/11 Truth organizations such as Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, etc., there is clearly a growing body of informed subject matter experts refuting the official account of 9/11.

Nonetheless, the pseudo-alternative media toe the line for the official conspiracy theory. (OCT).

[-] 2 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 2 years ago

I agree that the 9/11 truth movement hasn't got the recognition it deserves. I think people are just in disbelief that the U.S. government(or who ever) would do something like that. But of course there is evidence to support the theory that government would do such a thing. Operation Northwoods is a great example of how the government would create a false flag to war. Also the Downing st. Memo.

[-] 0 points by BofL (434) 2 years ago

Corporate money (all money) IS politics. Until we all realize that fact perfectly crystal clear, the OWS "movement" if it can be called such, is the divide and conquer mechanism it was spawned to become (by Soros and his Fed associates globally). The way Amanita puts it is oversimple-you are trying to attack the symptom, without truly understanding the cause. Please read our forum, the links contained within. Educate yourself about who those bad ol politicians and corporations ultimately represent. If you don't understand how the international bankers (the money) began tying this Gordian knot some 500yrs ago, you really can't begin to untangle yourself from the slavery, much less help anyone else. http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-413890